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 1-13 and 15 remain pending. Claims 1-13 and 15 have been amended. Claim 14 has been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 10, “the display part” in line 6 should be “a display part” since this is the first time the display part is being introduced. Also, the claim states “from among constituent members of the robot” in lines 4-5 and “the plurality of constituent members” in line 10. Applicant should keep the wording consistent and change the phrasing in lines 4-5 to “from among a plurality of constituent members of the robot”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US 20160221193 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Sato)
Regarding Claim 1, Sato teaches a controller configured to control a robot including a plurality of constituent members (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0028-0030, and Figure 1, the controlling system is interpreted as the controller, and the links, joints, base, end portion, and robot hand are interpreted as constituent members), the controller comprising:
a sensor configured to detect a state of operation of a constituent member (See at least Sato Paragraph 0031); and
a processor configured to control operation of the robot based on an output of the sensor (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0083, and 0098, the controlling section, which is implemented via a CPU, controls the robot according to the output of the sensor), wherein:
the processor is further configured to: set at least one constituent member out of the plurality of constituent members as a specific member (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0031, 0047, 0057, 0097-0098, 0102-0103, and Figure 5, the controlling section sets the robot hand as the specific member when in region A, and sets the joints j1-j3 as the specific member when in region B), determine a state of operation of the specific member based on an output of the sensor (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0031, 0047, 0057, 0097, and 0102, the controlling section determines the force acting on the specific member based on the sensor output), and change operation of the robot based on a determination result of the processor (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0098, and 0104-0107, the controlling section controls the operation of the robot based on the determination result, such as retracting the robot arm when an unexpected collision occurs), and
the plurality of constituent members are a work tool and members supporting the work tool (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0033, and Figure 1, the links, joints, base, and end portion are interpreted as members supporting the work tool, and the robot hand is interpreted as the work tool), and include at least one selected from a group of a turning base of the robot, an arm of the robot, a wrist of the robot and the work tool (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0029-0030, 0033, and Figure 1, the links and joints are the arm of the robot, the end portion is the wrist, and the robot hand is the work tool).
Regarding Claim 6, Sato teaches a robot device comprising:
the controller of claim 1 (See at least Sato Paragraph 0028 and Figure 1, the robot apparatus/device comprises the controlling system); and
the robot including the plurality of constituent members (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0028-0030, 0033, and Figure 1, the links, joints, base, end portion, and robot hand are interpreted as constituent members).
Regarding Claim 9, Sato teaches wherein the sensor includes a contact sensor configured to detect contact with the robot (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0006 and 0106, the second sensor is interpreted as a contact sensor),
the processor is configured to: determine whether or not a person is in contact with the specific member based on an output of the contact sensor (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0006 and 0106, the output of the contact sensor is used to determine a collision between a human and the specific members of the robot), and
perform at least one control selected from a group of control for avoiding an increase in a contact force and control for reducing an operation speed of the robot when a person is determined to be in contact with the specific member (See at least Sato Paragraph 0106, the robot retracting after a collision with the human is interpreted as avoiding an increase in contact force).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Matsunami et al (US 20160368142 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Matsunami)
Regarding Claim 2, even though Sato teaches setting the specific member, Sato fails to disclose a display part configured to display information regarding the constituent member of the robot,
wherein the processor is further configured to set the specific member based on operation performed on an image displayed on the display part.
However, Matsunami teaches a display part configured to display information regarding the constituent member of the robot (See at least Matsunami Paragraph 0062 and Figure 5, the display device displays the constituent members of the robot),
wherein the processor is further configured to set the specific member based on operation performed on an image displayed on the display part (See at least Matsunami Paragraphs 0105 and Figure 16b, the link L5 is set as the specific member based on the operation performed on the displayed image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Sato with Matsunami to set the specific member based on operation performed on an image displayed on the display part. This modification, as taught by Matsunami, would allow an operator to select the specific member from the constituent members by simply operating a pointing device such as a mouse displayed on a screen (See at least Matsunami Paragraphs 0105 and Figure 16b), which would improve the convenience of the system.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sato fails to disclose the display part is configured to display a list of the constituent members of the robot, and
the processor is configured to set a constituent member selected from the list of the constituent members as the specific member.
However, Matsunami teaches the display part is configured to display a list of the constituent members of the robot (See at least Matsunami Paragraph 0062, 0105, and Figures 5 and 16b, the display device displays a list of the constituent members of the robot), and
the processor is configured to set a constituent member selected from the list of the constituent members as the specific member (See at least Matsunami Paragraphs 0105 and Figure 16b, the link L5 is set as the specific member from the list of constituent members).
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 Sato with Matsunami to set a constituent member selected from the list of the constituent members as the specific member. This modification, as taught by Matsunami, would allow an operator to select the specific member from the constituent members by simply operating a pointing device such as a mouse displayed on a screen (See at least Matsunami Paragraphs 0105 and Figure 16b), which would improve the convenience of the system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Matsunami, and in further view of Takeuchi (US 20190358824 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Takeuchi)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sato teaches the processor is configured to designate…a designated region with respect to the constituent member of the robot (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0101-0102, and Figure 5, two regions are designated with respect to the constituent members of the robot), and
set, as the specific member, a constituent member of the robot being at least partially arranged inside the designated region (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0029, 0047, 0102, and Figure 5, the robot hand is set as the specific member when inside the designated region A).
Modified Sato fails to disclose the display part is configured to display an image of the robot.
However, Matsunami teaches the display part is configured to display an image of the robot (See at least Matsunami Paragraph 0062 and Figure 5, the display device displays an image 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 Sato with Matsunami to display an image of the robot. Displaying an image of the robot is routine, well-understood, conventional activity that, as taught by Matsunami, would allow an operator to see and confirm the state or operation of the robot (See at least Matsunami Paragraph 0062 and Figure 5).
Even though modified Sato teaches designating a designated region, modified Sato fails to disclose designating a designated region… in response to the operation performed on the image displayed on the display part by an operator.
However, Takeuchi teaches designating a designated region… in response to the operation performed on the image displayed on the display part by an operator (See at least Takeuchi Paragraphs 0115-0119, and Figure 10, the operation on the displayed image by the operator/user is used to designate a region with respect to the constituent member 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 Sato with Takeuchi to designate a designated region in response to the operation performed on the image displayed on the display part by an operator. This modification, as taught by Takeuchi, would allow a user/operator to designate the designated region by utilizing a user interface that displays the robot (See at least Takeuchi Paragraphs 0115-0119, and Figure 10), which would increase the control a user has over the system, thus, making it more desirable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Matsunami, and in further view of Akagi et al (US 20220176560 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Akagi)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sato teaches the processor is configured to designate…a work area in which an operator performs work around the robot (See at least Sato Paragraph 0106 and Figure 5, the region B is designated as a work area where the operator cooperatively works around the robot), and
the processor is configured to acquire a position and an orientation of the robot during a period in which the robot is driven (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0044, 0087 and 0103, the position and orientation of the robot is acquired using the encoders).
Modified Sato fails to explicitly disclose set, as the specific member, a constituent member of the robot being at least partially arranged inside the work area.
However, Sato does teach setting, the constituent member joint J3 of the robot arm as the specific member when the robot is inside the work area (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0057, 0102, 0105-0106, and Figure 5, when the robot arm is in the work area region B, the joints of the robot arm are set as the specific member), and joint J3 would be partially arranged inside the work area when the robot performs work on the part W2 (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0105, 0109, and Figure 5, for the robot to reach the part W2 in the work area region B, the robot would need to extend far enough into the work area that joint J3 of the robot arm would be inside the work area).
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 Sato to set, as the specific member, a constituent member of the robot being at least partially arranged inside the work area since the sensor on the constituent member, joint J3 of the robot arm, partially arranged inside the work area is used to detect collisions with the operator in the work area (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0057, 0102, 0105-0106, and Figure 5).
Even though modified Sato teaches designating a work area, modified Sato fails to disclose designating a work area… in response to the operation performed on the image displayed on the display part by an operator.
However, Akagi teaches designating a work area… in response to the operation performed on the image displayed on the display part by an operator (See at least Akagi Paragraphs 0017-0022 and Figure 9, the collaborative work area where the operator performs work is designated based on the operation on the displayed image).
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 Sato with Akagi to designate the work area in response to the operation performed on the image displayed on the display part by an operator. This modification, as taught by Akagi, would allow the user to set the desired regions including the collaborative work region, which would increase the safety and productivity (See at least Akagi Paragraph 0018).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Hourtash et al (US 20220110705 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Hourtash)
Regarding Claim 8, Sato fails to disclose the processor is configured to detect a speed at a movement point defined in advance for the constituent member,
the sensor is configured to detect a variable for calculating a speed of the movement point,
the processor is configured to: detect the speed of the movement point at the specific member based on an output of the sensor,
determine whether or not the speed of the movement point deviates from a determination range defined in advance, and
control the robot so as to reduce the speed of the movement point when the speed of the movement point deviates from the determination range.
However, Hourtash teaches the processor is configured to detect a speed at a movement point defined in advance for the constituent member (See at least Hourtash Paragraph 0064, the speed of the joint, which is interpreted as a movement point defined in advance for the constituent member, is detected),
the sensor is configured to detect a variable for calculating a speed of the movement point (See at least Hourtash Paragraph 0064, the sensor detects the position change over time to calculate the speed of the movement point/joint),
the processor is configured to: detect the speed of the movement point at the specific member based on an output of the sensor (See at least Hourtash Paragraph 0064, the speed is detected based on the output of the sensor indicating change in position over time),
determine whether or not the speed of the movement point deviates from a determination range defined in advance (See at least Hourtash Paragraph 0006, the joint exceeding the threshold velocity is interpreted as deviating from a determination range defined in advance), and
control the robot so as to reduce the speed of the movement point when the speed of the movement point deviates from the determination range (See at least Hourtash Paragraph 0006, the actuator resists movement or applies increasing amount of resistance when the speed deviates from the determination range, which is interpreted as reducing the speed of the movement point/joint).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Sato with Hourtash to control the robot so as to reduce the speed of the movement point when the speed of the movement point deviates from the determination range. This modification, as taught by Hourtash, would reduce the speed of the movement point below the threshold velocity when the threshold velocity has been exceeded (See at least Hourtash Paragraph 0006), which would increase the safety of the system.
Claims 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al (US 20190039242 A1) in view of Matsunami, Sato and Takeuchi (Hereinafter referred to as Fujii)
Regarding Claim 10, Fujii teaches an operating device for setting a parameter for controlling a robot (See at least Fujii Paragraph 0027, the interference determination system for generating a path is interpreted as an operating device for setting a parameter for controlling a robot), the operating device comprising a processor (See at least Fujii Paragraphs 0027 and 0081) configured to:
acquire information for setting, from among constituent members of the robot, a specific member having a possibility of contact (See at least Fujii Paragraphs 0101, 0116, 0119-0120, 0125, and Figure 15, link L5 is set as the specific member, which has a possibility of contact/interference)…;
…and wherein the plurality of constituent members are members supporting a work tool and the work tool (See at least Fujii Paragraphs 0101, 0105, and Figures 8a-8b, the base, links, and joints are interpreted as members supporting a work tool, and the end effector is interpreted to be the work tool), and include at least one selected from a group of a turning base of the robot, an arm of the robot, a wrist of the robot, and the work tool (See at least Fujii Paragraphs 0101, 0105, and Figures 8a-8b, the links L1-L4 and joints J1-J5 are part of the arm of the robot, link L5 is the wrist, and the end effector is the work tool);
output the information for setting a specific member (See at least Fujii Paragraphs 0102, 0116, 0119-0120, 0125, and Figure 15, link L5 is output as the specific member, which is then used to determine interference for the motion path in S23), and
control an operation of the robot based on the information for the specific member (See at least Fujii Paragraphs 0076 and 0082, the robot is controlled based on the interference determination for the specific member).
Even though Fujii teaches a display part and setting a specific member, Fujii fails to explicitly disclose display an image of the robot; and
setting a specific member… based on operation on an image displayed on the display part, wherein the display part displays a static image of the robot.
However, Matsunami teaches display an image of the robot (See at least Matsunami Paragraph 0062 and Figure 5, the display part displays an image of the robot); and
setting a specific member… based on operation on an image displayed on the display part, wherein the display part displays a static image of the robot (See at least Matsunami Paragraph 0105 and Figure 16b, the link L5 is set as the specific member based on the operation performed on the displayed static image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Fujii with Matsunami to set the specific member based on operation performed on an image displayed on the display part. This modification, as taught by Matsunami, would allow an operator to select the specific member from the constituent members by simply operating a pointing device such as a mouse displayed on a screen (See at least Matsunami Paragraphs 0105 and Figure 16b), which would improve the convenience of the system.
Modified Fujii fails to disclose acquire a designated region defined for selecting a specific member.
However, Sato teaches acquire a designated region defined for selecting a specific member (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0047, 0057, 0101-0102, and Figure 5, the designated regions, region A and region B, for selecting a specific member are acquired).
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 Fujii with Sato to acquire the designated regions for selecting a specific member. This modification, as taught by Sato, would allow the system to select the appropriate specific member based on which designated region the robot is in (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0047, 0057, 0101-0105, and Figure 5), thus, enabling high precision control (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0012 and 0104-0105).
Modified Fujii fails to disclose acquiring the designated region… with respect to the static image of the robot by operation on the static image displayed on the display part.
However, Takeuchi teaches acquiring the designated region… with respect to the static image of the robot by operation on an image displayed on the display part (See at least Takeuchi Paragraphs 0115-0119, and Figure 10, the operation on the displayed image is used to designate a region with respect to the image 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 Fujii with Takeuchi to acquire a designated region in response to the operation on an image displayed on the display part. This modification, as taught by Takeuchi, would allow a user to designate the designated region by utilizing a user interface that displays the robot (See at least Takeuchi Paragraphs 0115-0119, and Figure 10), which would increase the control a user has over the system, thus, making it more desirable.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Fujii teaches the processor is configured to acquire a constituent member of the robot (See at least Fujii Paragraphs 0100-0101, 0105, and Figures 8a-8b, the base, links, joints, and the end effector are interpreted as constituent members).
Modified Fujii fails to disclose the constituent member being selected by operation on the image displayed on the display part.
However, Matsunami teaches the constituent member being selected by operation on the image displayed on the display part (See at least Matsunami Paragraph 0105 and Figure 16b, the constituent member link L5 is selected based on the operation on the image displayed).
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 Fujii with Matsunami to select the constituent member by operation on an image displayed on the display part. This modification, as taught by Matsunami, would allow an operator to select the specific member from the constituent members by simply operating a pointing device such as a mouse displayed on a screen (See at least Matsunami Paragraphs 0105 and Figure 16b), which would improve the convenience of the system.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Fujii fails to disclose the processor is configured to acquire a drive axis selected from among a plurality of drive axes of the robot by operation on the image displayed on the display part.
However, Matsunami teaches the acquisition unit is configured to acquire a drive axis selected from among a plurality of drive axes of the robot by operation on the image displayed on the display part (See at least Matsunami Paragraphs 0086-0088 and Figure 12, the joint/drive axis J3 is selected by operation on the image displayed).
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 Fujii with Matsunami to select a drive axis by operation on an image displayed on the display part. This modification, as taught by Matsunami, would allow an operator to select and set a specific drive axis/joint by performing an input operation on the displayed image (See at least Matsunami Paragraphs 0086-0088 and Figure 12), which would improve the control an operator has over the system, thus, making it more desirable.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Matsunami, Sato, and Takeuchi, and in further view of Akagi
Regarding Claim 11, modified Fujii fails to disclose the display part is configured to display a work area in which an operator performs work around the robot, and
the processor is configured to acquire a position of the work area defined with respect to a position of the robot in response to the operation.
However, Akagi teaches the display part is configured to display a work area in which an operator performs work around the robot (See at least Akagi Paragraph 0088 and Figure 9, the interface/display part displays the collaborative work region where the operator performs work around the robot), and
the processor is configured to acquire a position of the work area defined with respect to a position of the robot in response to the operation (See at least Akagi Paragraphs 0017-0022 and Figure 9, the collaborative work area where the operator performs work is designated based on the operation on the displayed image).
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 Fujii with Akagi to acquire a position of the work area defined with respect to a position of the robot in response to the operation. This modification, as taught by Akagi, would allow the user to set the desired regions including the collaborative work region, which would increase the safety and productivity (See at least Akagi Paragraph 0018).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Fujii teaches the processor is configured to acquire a constituent member of the robot (See at least Fujii Paragraphs 0100-0101, 0105, and Figures 8a-8b, the base, links, joints, and the end effector are interpreted as constituent members).
Modified Fujii fails to disclose the constituent member being at least partially arranged inside the work area when the robot is driven based on an operation program.
However, Akagi teaches the constituent member being at least partially arranged inside the work area when the robot is driven based on an operation program (See at least Akagi Paragraphs 0007, 0051, and 0057-0058, the robot’s constituent member is partially inside the work area/collaborative work region when driven based on the operation program).
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 Fujii with Akagi to have the robot’s constituent member be at least partially arranged inside the work area when the robot is driven based on an operation program. This modification, as taught by Akagi, would allow the robot to perform collaborative work with the operator, thus, increasing productivity (See at least Akagi Paragraphs 0007, and 0018).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on Pages 10-11 of the remarks, that the sensors in Sato are constituent members and Sato sets one of the two sensors as the specific member. According to Applicant, Sato does not disclose “the plurality of constituent members are a work tool and members supporting the work tool, and include at least one selected from a group of a turning base of the robot, an arm of the robot, a wrist of the robot and the work tool.”. Applicant further states that Sato “does not disclose that the processor determines “a state of operation of the specific member based on an output of the sensor and change operation of the robot based on a determination result” as recited in Applicant’s claim 1.
However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant. The constituent members of the robot in Sato are the links, joints, base, end portion, and robot hand. The robot hand is a work tool for holding a work as stated in Paragraph 0033 of Sato, “The robot hand 102 has a plurality of holding pawls which hold a work,”. The other constituent members are members for supporting the work tool/robot hand. The links and joints of the robot make up the arm of the robot as shown in Figure 1. The end portion is the wrist as stated in Paragraph 0029, “The robot arm 101 has an end portion (wrist portion) 131 which is a free end,”. Therefore, Sato teaches “the plurality of constituent members are a work tool and members supporting the work tool, and include at least one selected from a group of a turning base of the robot, an arm of the robot, a wrist of the robot and the work tool”. Furthermore, the sensors are not a constituent member, but rather used to output a state of operation of the specific member. Paragraph 0033 of Sato states “A first sensor for finding (sensing) a force acting on the robot hand 102 (external force) is arranged on the end portion 131 of the robot arm 101. Second sensors 132 for finding (detecting) a force acting on each joint J1 to J3 of the robot arm 101 (external force) are arranged in the joints J1 to J3 of the robot arm 101, respectively.”. Paragraph 0102 of Sato states “Specifically, the controlling section 221 selects the sensing result of the first sensor 131, when the operation position of the robot arm 101 (end portion 131) belongs to the region A, and selects the sensing result of the second sensor 132, when the operation position of the robot arm 101 belongs to the region B.”. Therefore, when the robot is in region A, the specific member is the robot hand/work tool and the first sensor is used to output a force acting on the robot hand. When the robot is in region B, the specific member is the robot arm, and the sensors in the joints of the robot arm are used to output a force acting on the robot arm. The robot, as stated in Paragraphs 0098 and 0106-0107, performs force control based on the output of the force sensor, such as retracting the arm when there is a collision. Therefore, Sato teaches the processor determines “a state of operation of the specific member based on an output of the sensor and change operation of the robot based on a determination result”.
For these reasons, claims 1-6 and 8-9 still stand rejected.
Regarding Claim 10, Applicant argues, on Page 13 of the remarks, that the prior art does not teach “acquire a designated region defined for selecting the specific member with respect to the static image of the robot by operation on the static image displayed on the display part, and wherein the plurality of constituent members are members supporting a work tool and the work tool, and include at least one selected from a group of a turning base of the robot, an arm of the robot, a wrist of the robot, and the work tool”.
However, Fujii teaches, in Paragraphs 0101, 0105, and Figures 8a-8b, that the robot includes a plurality of constituent members, which include an arm of the robot (L1-L4 and J1-J5), a wrist of the robot (L5), and work tool (end effector). Fujii teaches selecting a constituent member as the specific member, such as the wrist L5, to perform interference determination and control the robot accordingly. Fujii is modified with the teachings of Sato, which teaches acquiring a designated region defined for selecting the specific member. The specific member in Sato, as stated above with regards to claim 1, is selected based on which designated region the robot is in. Sato fails to disclose the region is defined with respect to the static image of the robot by operation on the static image displayed on the display part. However, this limitation is taught by Takeuchi, which teaches designating a region with respect to the static image of the robot by operation on the static image displayed on the display part. Therefore, the combination of references teaches “acquire a designated region defined for selecting the specific member with respect to the static image of the robot by operation on the static image displayed on the display part, and wherein the plurality of constituent members are members supporting a work tool and the work tool, and include at least one selected from a group of a turning base of the robot, an arm of the robot, a wrist of the robot, and the work tool”.
For these reasons, claims 10-13 and 15 still stand rejected
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