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 an RCE filed on 04/07/2026. Claims 1-13 and 15 remain pending. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 10-13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 5, “an operator” in line 3 should be “the operator” since the operator has already been introduced in line 2.
For claim 10, “the image displayed on the display part, wherein a display part displays a static image of the robot” in lines 5-6 should be “the image displayed on a display part, wherein the display part displays a static image of the robot”.
Also in claim 10, “a static image” in the second to last paragraph should be “the static image” since the static image has already been introduced earlier in the claim.
For claim 11, “an operator” should be “the operator” since the operator has already been introduced in claim 10.
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, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20160221193 A1) in view of Behrens (US 20240135068 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Sato and Behrens respectively)
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),
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).
Sato fails to disclose the processor estimates maximum value of an external force acting on the robot when a person contacts the robot, based on the state of operation of the specific member, and controls the robot based on the maximum value of the external force.
However, Behrens teaches estimates maximum value of an external force acting on the robot when a person contacts the robot, based on the state of operation of the specific member (See at least Behrens Paragraphs 0002-0004, the maximum contact/external forces between the robot and human are calculated based on the robot speed, which is interpreted as the state of operation), and controls the robot based on the maximum value of the external force (See at least Behrens Paragraph 0004, the speed of the robot is controlled based on the maximum force).
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 Behrens to control the robot based on the maximum value of the external force. This modification, as taught by Behrens, would ensure the contact forces between the person and robot does not exceed a biomechanical limit, thus, preventing a living being from being injured (See at least Behrens Paragraph 0004).
Regarding Claim 6, modified 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, modified 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).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Behrens, and in further view of Matsunami et al (US 20160368142 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Matsunami)
Regarding Claim 2, even though Sato teaches setting the specific member, modified 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 modified 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 Behrens and 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 Behrens and 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 Behrens, and in further view of Hourtash et al (US 20220110705 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Hourtash)
Regarding Claim 8, modified 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 modified 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10-13, and 15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on Pages 7-8 of the remarks, that Sato “does not disclose that the processor sets the turning base, the arm, the wrist, or the work tool as the specific member”. Applicant further states that Sato “does not disclose that the processor determines the state of operation of the specific member and changes operation of the robot based on the state of the operation.
However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant. When the robot is in region A, the specific member is the work tool and the force acting on the work tool, which is a state of operation, is determined. When the robot is in region B, the specific member is the arm and the force acting on the arm, which is a state of operation, is determined. Examiner recommends that Applicant amend the claim to either clarify what the state of operation that is determined is, or clarify how one of the constituent members is selected as the specific member.
Regarding the newly added limitation for estimating the maximum value of an external force and controlling the robot based on the maximum value of the external force, this limitation is taught by newly added reference Behrens, which teaches calculating the maximum value of an external force when a robot collides with a person by using the robot parameters and speed of the robot, and controlling the robot based on the calculated maximum force.
For these reasons, claims 1-6 and 8-9 still stand rejected.
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
Prosecution Insights