DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 03/27/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending and examined below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) ‐ (d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2021/158480, filed on 09/28/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the submitted specification contains two different summary sections; one after [0004] and another one on [0106]. Examiner recommend to merge two summaries.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 15), which recites “the suitability” line 2 lacks antecedent basis and not clear since suitability is not mentioned earlier.
Also recites “a first robot…a robot” line 3 is not clear. It is not clear whether first robot and robot are same or different. It is not clear whether the claim limitation is referring suitability of a first robot control program for first robot is estimated from plural control programs for any robots or something else.
Also recites “a candidate first control program” line 9 is not clear since candidate first control program is also recited on line 2. It is not clear whether both candidate first control programs are same or different.
Also recites “acquire first environmental information indicating a work environment of the first robot, acquire second environmental information indicating an environment in which the first control program is to be executed” is not clear. It is not clear what is referred by “first environmental information” and “second environmental information”. The recited claim language is interpreted as first environmental information is a robot work environment information, does not specify the first environmental information is for current or past or future work environment or something else. The recited claim language is interpreted as second environmental information is a robot work environmental information in future (“to be executed”). However, submitted specification describe first environmental information is prepared environmental information (may be future not sure) and second environmental information is past recorded environmental information. See at least [0052] of PGPub of submitted specification. The claim language as recited contradict with the submitted specification. For the examination purposes, first environmental information is interpreted as the environmental information of control program is executed. Second environmental information is interpreted as past recorded environmental information.
Dependent claim(s) 2-14 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claim 3), which recites “the user” lacks antecedent basis and unclear since user is not mentioned earlier on claim 1. It is not clear which user it is referring.
Regarding claim 3, which recites “selection of a control program” line 2 is not clear. It is not clear a control program is selected or a first control program is selected.
Regarding claim 6, which recites “classification of improperness” is not clear. It is not clear whether it is referring improperness of control program based on the similarity of work environment or not.
Regarding claim 11, which recites “the object” lacks antecedent basis and unclear since object is not mentioned earlier on claim 1. It is not clear which object it is referring.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim (s) 1-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under step 1 analysis, the claim is a device, which is a machine.
Under step 2A prong 1, the inquiry is if the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Claim 1 recites “a controller that estimates the suitability of a candidate first control program to control a first robot from a plurality of control programs to control a robot which are recorded in a memory, wherein the controller is configured to acquire first environmental information indicating a work environment of the first robot, acquire second environmental information indicating an environment in which the first control program is to be executed, and estimating the suitability of a candidate first control program on the basis of a similarity between the first environmental information and the second environmental information.”, which reflect to the abstract idea of a mental process that could be performed in a person’s mind. The steps recited on claim 1, observation, data gathering and determining suitability and a person does those steps normally mentally, an ordinary person can take the decision if an environment is suitable for a task or not.
Under step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are no additional steps other than observation and evaluation involved on the recited claim limitation.
Under step 2B, there is no additional steps.
Examiner suggests adding claim 13 to claim 1 to overcome 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites “controls the robot”, which makes the claim as a whole into a practical application and eliminate the mental process.
Regarding claim 2-12 and 15, similar analysis as claim 1 which is a mental process of human observing, evaluating the status of environment based on observation.
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, 8, 9 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264648 (“Kim”), and further in view of US 2006/0064202 (“Gutmann”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 15), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Kim discloses an information processing device comprising (see at least fig 3):
a controller that estimates the suitability of a candidate first control program to control a first robot from a plurality of control programs to control a robot which are recorded in a memory (see at least [0041], where “the robot motion control unit 350 can control the robot arm 110 by selecting a suitable work program among the work programs stored in the data storage unit 360 in accordance with the work type and the workflow of the robot motion based upon the measured information on the work environment”), wherein
the controller is configured to acquire first environmental information indicating a work environment of the first robot (see at least fig 14, block 1370 and [0109]),
acquire second environmental information indicating an environment in which the first control program is to be executed (see at least fig 14, block 1330 and [0102]), and
estimating the suitability of a candidate first control program on the basis of (see at least fig 15, block 1400 and [0111]. See also [0108], where “the apparatus for controlling the robot can control the performance of the robot motion by selecting a suitable work program in accordance with the work type and the workflow of the robot motion based upon the measured information on the work environment”).
Kim does not disclose the following limitation:
estimating…a similarity between the first environmental information and the second environmental information.
However, Gutmann discloses a system wherein estimating…a similarity between the first environmental information and the second environmental information (see at least [0164], where “it outputs the degree of similarity between the environment map and each of the environment maps stored in the storage device. Subsequently, it identifies the environment by outputting the environment ID of the environment map that shows a degree of similarity exceeding a threshold value.”; environment maps stored is interpreted as second environmental information and environment map is interpreted as first environmental information).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Gutmann by including the above feature for providing more accurate control program by determining similarity between two environmental information.
Regarding claim 8, Kim further discloses a device wherein when a first control program to be executed by the first robot is determined, the controller causes the memory to record third environmental information indicating an environment in which control of the first robot is to be performed, in association with the first control program (see at least [0048], where “The data storage unit 360 can store…the information on the work environment in which the robot motion is performed”; see also [0110], where “it is possible to store past measurement results and to use the past measurement results when similar works are performed.”).
Regarding claim 9, Kim further discloses a device wherein the controller corrects a determination criterion for the suitability of the candidate on the basis of the third environmental information (see at least [0014], where “control the robot by efficiently generating or modifying the robot control program when the work type or the work environment of the robot is changed.”; modifying the control program is interpreted as corrects a determination criterion of the control program).
Regarding claim 13, Kim further discloses a robot controller that controls the robot by executing a control program outputted upon being determined to be in a suitable state in the information processing device according to claim 1 (see at least fig 15, block 1430).
Regarding claim 14, Kim further discloses a robot control system comprising: the information processing device according to claim 1; the robot controller according to claim 13; and the robot (see at least fig 2).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264648 (“Kim”), and in view of US 2006/0064202 (“Gutmann”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0321671 (“Pistorius”).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Kim in view of Gutmann does not disclose claim 2. However, Pistorius discloses a device wherein the controller estimates the suitability of the candidate when the user has selected the candidate (see at least [0071], where “receiving at a process controller user-input of an identification of a desired control program for a robotic controller of a manufacturing apparatus”; see also [0074], where “validating by the process controller whether or not the desired control program matches the designated control program.”; process controller is validating the user selected control program whether it matches (e.g., suitable) or not.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Gutmann to incorporate the teachings of Pistorius by including the above feature for increasing the safety by validating the program/instruction.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Pistorius further discloses a device wherein the controller estimates an improper selection of a control program by the user on the basis of a result of the estimation regarding the candidate (see at least [0038], where “the process controller determines that the user-selected control program fails to match the control program designated in the appropriate work order. In this case, process controller 24 may be configured to prevent execution of the desired but incorrect control program.”).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264648 (“Kim”), and in view of US 2006/0064202 (“Gutmann”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0268645 (“Miyazawa”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Gutmann does not disclose claim 4. However, Miyazawa discloses a device wherein the controller estimates an improper environment of the work environment on the basis of a result of the estimation regarding the candidate (see at least fig 2, where operation is executed based on surrounding recognition. See also fig 11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Gutmann to incorporate the teachings of Miyazawa by including the above feature for choosing most appropriate control program by determining degree of improperness.
Regarding claim 5, Miyazawa further discloses a device wherein the controller detects, as the improper environment, too few or too many of an object that should be prepared in the vicinity of the first robot, different placement of the object, or different attribute information about the object (see at least [0093], where “it is shown that the larger the number of people in the surroundings, the greater the difference from a usual environment, and the smaller the number of people in the surroundings, the greater the similarity to the usual environment.”).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Kim in view of Gutmann does not disclose claim 6. However, Miyazawa further discloses a device wherein the controller estimates a classification of improperness on the basis of the similarity (see at least [0092], where “As shown in FIG. 6, the environmental weight indicates that, the smaller the numerical value, the greater the difference of the current operating environment from a usual operating environment, and the larger the numerical value, the greater the similarity of the current operating environment to the usual operating environment.”; see also [0007] and [0093-94]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264648 (“Kim”), and in view of US 2006/0064202 (“Gutmann”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0203539 (“Touma”).
Regarding claim 7, Gutmann further discloses a device wherein the controller is configured to estimate the suitability of the candidate on the basis of the similarity (see citation above).
Kim in view of Gutmann does not disclose the following limitation:
acquire usage information indicating usage conditions of the candidate, and estimate the suitability of the candidate on the basis of…the usage information.
However, Touma discloses a system wherein acquire usage information indicating usage conditions of the candidate, and estimate the suitability of the candidate on the basis of…the usage information ([0122] of PGPub of submitted specification describe, usage information as a user who causes the robot to perform a task. see Touma at least [0083], where “when it is determined that the password input by the user matches the proper predetermined password transmitted by the robot controller 20 in the password verification processing, that is, when the password input by the user is correct (YES in step S23 in FIG. 3), the operation terminal 40 executes the processing of step S25.”; user matching is interpreted as estimate the suitability).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Gutmann to incorporate the teachings of Touma by including the above feature for increasing safety and operational performance by selecting control program based on usage information.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264648 (“Kim”), and in view of US 2006/0064202 (“Gutmann”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0139947 (“Kim’947”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Gutmann does not disclose claim 10. However, Ota discloses a device wherein the controller detects an improper environment or an improper selection on the basis of information pertaining to the position of an object present in the work environment (see at least [0057], where “the information associated with the traveling space may be information about an object, that is, a position of an obstacle on the traveling space, a position of other robots, and a position of the user. A distance map may be a form of storing a scale of a straight line to a nearest obstacle for each cell.”; see also fig 7, where improper environment e.g., obstacles in the environment are shown.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Gutmann to incorporate the teachings of Kim’947 by including the above feature for avoiding collision with any obstacles in the work environment.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264648 (“Kim”), and in view of US 2006/0064202 (“Gutmann”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0316668 (“Fu”).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Gutman further discloses a device wherein the object present in the work environment includes (see at least [0172], where “The occupancy grid computing section OG330 holds obstacle information (environment map) on a 4 m area surrounding and centered at the robot apparatus 1 and attitude information showing the direction that the robot apparatus 1 faces and updates the environment map by means of a probabilistic technique.”; surrounding area is interpreted as work environment.).
Kim in view of Gutman does not disclose the following limitation:
work environment includes peripheral equipment placed in the work environment.
However, Fu discloses a system wherein work environment includes peripheral equipment placed in the work environment (see at least [0025], where “the peripheral equipment 4 is determined according to whether the robot 3 and the peripheral equipment 4 in real space are detected from an imaging result of the camera 2b.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Gutmann to incorporate the teachings of Fu by including the above feature for avoiding collision with any obstacles in the work environment including peripheral equipment.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0264648 (“Kim”), and in view of US 2006/0064202 (“Gutmann”), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2012/0072023 (“Ota”).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Gutmann does not disclose claim 12. However, Ota discloses a device wherein the controller computes a similarity for information pertaining to attribute information about an object present in the work environment (see at least [0040], where “Similarity values may be generated and the registered object shape pattern having the highest similarity value may be selected as the appropriate registered object shape pattern.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Gutmann to incorporate the teachings of Ota by including the above feature for selecting appropriate control program by determining similarity information of the object present in the environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657