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 .
Remarks
The claims being considered in this application are those submitted on 04/10/2024. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of JP2021-170152 on 10/18/2021 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 04/10/2024 has been annotated and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 8, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200147787 A1) in view of Romo et. al. (US 20160184032 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi discloses:
An information processing apparatus, (See at least Figure 2 and ¶0037 via "Robot Controller 14")
comprising a stiffness control unit that controls, (See at least Figure 2 via "Impedance Control System Parameter Setting Switching Portion 34" and ¶0037 via "That is, the robot controller 14 adjusts the parameter of the impedance control system such that the robot arm is more easily moved in the direction of the manipulating force applied to the handling portion 13 by the teaching operator. Specifically, either one or both of a virtual viscosity coefficient and virtual elasticity coefficient of the control parameters of a joint shaft to be driven for the movement are adjusted." *Wherein the stiffness control function is corresponding to the elasticity coefficient)
on a basis of a detection result of a (See at least ¶0037 via " For example, as indicated by P0 at the left end of FIG. 5, when a gripped workpiece 51 gripped by the hand 12 is not in contact with and is separated from an assembly target workpiece 52, the reaction force detected by the six-axis force sensor is 0, and in this case, movement in the direction of the manipulating force applied by the teaching operator is facilitated")
stiffness regarding driving of the joint of the robot arm (See at least ¶0037 via "Specifically, either one or both of a virtual viscosity coefficient and virtual elasticity coefficient of the control parameters of a joint shaft to be driven for the movement are adjusted. At this time, the adjustment amount of the parameter of the impedance control system may be changed for each joint in accordance with the ratio and magnitude of the movement amount of each joint shaft.").
However, although Takahashi discloses a sensor that is used in the human-robot interaction: "six-axis force sensor" as per ¶0037, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the pressure sensor which is provided at a position using a joint of a robot arm as a reference.
Nevertheless, Romo--who is directed towards systems and methods for moving or manipulating robotic arms--discloses: a pressure sensor (See at least ¶0321 via " In a step 4140, the first robotic arm may detect a user exerted force on the first robotic arm. The first robotic arm may comprise one or more links and joints; and, the first robotic arm may comprise a torque sensor coupled to the joint or a tactile and/or force sensor coupled to the link, such as by being placed over the outer surface of the link.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Takahashi in view of Romo's tactile sensor as an alternate method to detect human applied forces: "When using tactile sensors, sensors which are activated may directly show the location of the external force…The algorithm may read the type of input given, such as whether an input is a slow push, quick tap, a shake, or a pull" [Romo ¶0322], thus allowing for the tactile input to correspond to the control similarly to the six-axis force sensor of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Furthermore, Takahashi discloses: further comprising a storage unit that stores the stiffness set by the stiffness control unit and motion of the robot arm by driving of the joint in association with each other (See at least Table Figure 4 and additionally ¶0085-¶0086 via " In the present embodiment, the robot controller stores the position and orientation of the robot and force profile information of the torque sensor and the force sensor from P0 to P4 in the teaching stage, and the robot operation plan generation portion 32 generates the work operation program…That is, not only the position and orientation (trajectory) of the robot but also the magnitude and direction of the reaction force that the robot receives from the work target object in each step of the work, that is, of the force to be applied to the work target object are taught").
PNG
media_image1.png
502
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 2.
Furthermore, Takahashi discloses: wherein the storage unit stores the stiffness and the motion in association with each other in a case where a direct teaching mode on which an operator moves the robot arm and (See at least Table Figure 4 which illustrates the stiffness as elasticity coefficient and additionally ¶0085-¶0086 via " In the present embodiment, the robot controller stores the position and orientation of the robot and force profile information of the torque sensor and the force sensor from P0 to P4 in the teaching stage, and the robot operation plan generation portion 32 generates the work operation program…That is, not only the position and orientation (trajectory) of the robot but also the magnitude and direction of the reaction force that the robot receives from the work target object in each step of the work, that is, of the force to be applied to the work target object are taught")
However, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the predetermined motion. Nevertheless, Romo discloses: stores a predetermined motion is selected (See at least ¶0337 via "The present disclosure provides for the sensing and control of the robot to take natural human inputs, such as a tap, push, or pull, on the arm to command an expected motion. For example, a double tap on the “elbow” of the arm (e.g., a joint of the robotic arm) can mean the human wants the “wrist” to maintain position and to only move its elbow…In third example, if the “wrist” is pushed by itself, then it can mean the human wants to whole arm to follow the new position of the “wrist.” The robot does this by sensing where and how the human is giving touch inputs to the arm, and uses that input (tap, double tap, tug, vibration, etc.) to enable admittance mode, a control scheme in which the robot takes force input as a motion command. The behavior of the admittance mode, such as which joints can be enabled or virtual limits on motion, is defined by the type of human input given.". Additionally, see ¶0345 via "The algorithm may read the type of input given, such as whether an input is a slow push, quick tap, a shake, or a pull. The algorithm can use a library of cases to toggle between different admittance modes." *Illustrating the motions being stored)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Takahashi in view of the storing of predetermined motions such as in Romo in order to improve the teaching and operation of the robot by including specific tactile cues that correspond to specific control. Furthermore, having predetermined motions would improve ergonomics for an operator when teaching a robot to do specific tasks, such as those related to medical: "Therefore, it would be beneficial to have a system and tools for endolumenal robotic procedures that provide improved ergonomics, usability, and navigation." [Romo ¶0007].
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Furthermore, Takahashi discloses: wherein the robot arm includes one or more joints and one or more links, (See at least Figure 1 which depicts the robot with one or more joints/links)
the one or more links rotating or translating by driving of each of the one or more joints, and (See at least ¶0037 via "the robot controller 14 is capable of adjusting a parameter of an impedance control system for driving the motor of each joint shaft, in accordance with the orientation of the robot arm 11 and the manipulating force applied to the handling portion 13 by the teaching operator")
the stiffness control unit controls stiffness regarding rotation or translation of the one or more links (See at least ¶0037 via "That is, the robot controller 14 adjusts the parameter of the impedance control system such that the robot arm is more easily moved in the direction of the manipulating force applied to the handling portion 13 by the teaching operator. Specifically, either one or both of a virtual viscosity coefficient and virtual elasticity coefficient of the control parameters of a joint shaft to be driven for the movement are adjusted").
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 4.
Furthermore, Takahashi discloses: further comprising a storage unit that stores the stiffness set by the stiffness control unit and a track of the link by driving of the joint in association with each other (See at least table Figure 4 and ¶0039 via "In addition, in the present embodiment, when teaching a work trajectory, the parameter of the impedance control system of each joint shaft can be adjusted on the basis of the reaction force from the work target object measured by the force sensor…Specifically, adjustment is made by changing the virtual viscosity coefficient and the virtual elasticity coefficient of the control parameters of the joint shaft of the robot arm driven to move the hand 12 in the direction of the manipulating force applied to the handling portion 13 by the teaching operator, such that the movement becomes more difficult. At this time, the adjustment amount of the parameter of the impedance control system may be changed for each joint in accordance with the ratio and magnitude of the movement amount of each joint shaft.")
Regarding Claim 8, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 4.
Furthermore, Romo discloses: wherein the pressure sensor is provided in a region that is a hold target of the link when an operator moves the link (See at least ¶0317 via "Torque sensors or tactile sensors on the robot arm sense an external force, such as a person pushing on the end of the arm, and use the force vector as a command to the robot to move" and ¶0321 via "the robotic arm may sense torque at each joint and/or have tactile sensing along the robotic arm")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to further modify Modified Takahashi in view of the location of the pressure sensor such as in Romo in order to improve the human and robot interaction and ensuring the pressure is adequately detected: "provide improved ergonomics, usability, and navigation" [Romo ¶0007].
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Furthermore, Takahashi discloses: wherein the stiffness control unit retains a maximum value of pressure detected by the pressure sensor and sets the stiffness according to the retained maximum value (See at least Figure 4 which illustrates the elasticity k which is the stiffness. At any given moment, the stiffness recorded is the maximum stiffness value)
However, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the pressure sensor, but Romo discloses: a pressure sensor (See at least ¶0321 via "In a step 4140, the first robotic arm may detect a user exerted force on the first robotic arm. The first robotic arm may comprise one or more links and joints; and, the first robotic arm may comprise a torque sensor coupled to the joint or a tactile and/or force sensor coupled to the link, such as by being placed over the outer surface of the link.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Takahashi in view of Romo's tactile sensor as an alternate method to detect human applied forces: "When using tactile sensors, sensors which are activated may directly show the location of the external force…The algorithm may read the type of input given, such as whether an input is a slow push, quick tap, a shake, or a pull" [Romo ¶0322], thus allowing for the tactile input to correspond to the control similarly to the six-axis force sensor of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 13.
However, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, but Romo discloses: wherein the stiffness control unit decreases the stiffness in a case where a predetermined manipulation is input to the pressure sensor (See at least ¶0344 via "In a step 4330, the user intent may be determined based on the detected force. For example, the robotic surgery system may determine whether the exerted force is one or more of a hold, a push, a pull, a tap, a plurality of taps, a rotation, or a shake of at least a portion of the robotic arm. In some embodiments, the detected force may indicate toggling admittance mode on or off." *Wherein the robot in admittance mode has a decreased stiffness enabling the human to move it easier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to further modify Modified Takahashi in view of the decrease in stiffness when a predetermined manipulation is input to the pressure sensor in order to determine what the user's intention is based on a specific type of manipulation or maneuver: " The algorithm may read the type of input given, such as whether an input is a slow push, quick tap, a shake, or a pull. The algorithm can use a library of cases to toggle between different admittance modes" [Romo ¶0345].
Regarding Claim 15, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 14.
However, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, but Romo discloses: wherein the predetermined manipulation includes a stroke manipulation (See at least ¶0015 via " The user may exert a force on the robotic arm, such as a tap, a push, a pull, a double tap or plurality of taps, a hold, or a shake, to name a few.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Takahashi to disclose the specific type of manipulation in order to associate a specific type of motion with a specific intent: "The robotic force may detect the force exerted and determine the intent of the user based on the characteristics of the detected force. Such characteristics may include the location, magnitude, direction, and timing of the exerted force. Based on the determined user intent, the robotic arm may move in a predetermined pattern." [Romo ¶0015].
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
However, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, but Romo discloses: wherein the pressure sensor is a tactile sensor (See at least ¶0028 via " The force sensor of the first robotic arm may comprise a tactile sensor coupled to the at least one link").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Takahashi in view of Romo's tactile sensor as an alternate method to detect human applied forces: "When using tactile sensors, sensors which are activated may directly show the location of the external force…The algorithm may read the type of input given, such as whether an input is a slow push, quick tap, a shake, or a pull" [Romo ¶0322], thus allowing for the tactile input to correspond to the control similarly to the six-axis force sensor of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 17, Takahashi discloses:
An information processing method executed by a computer system, comprising (See at least ¶0010 via "In addition, a second aspect of the present invention is a control method for a working robot including an arm including a plurality of shafts, a hand, a controller, a handling portion configured to receive a manipulating force applied by a teaching operator when teaching an operation, a manipulating force detection portion configured to detect the manipulating force, and a reaction force detection portion configured to detect a reaction force received by the hand from a work target object.")
controlling, on a basis of a detection result of a (See at least ¶0037 via " For example, as indicated by P0 at the left end of FIG. 5, when a gripped workpiece 51 gripped by the hand 12 is not in contact with and is separated from an assembly target workpiece 52, the reaction force detected by the six-axis force sensor is 0, and in this case, movement in the direction of the manipulating force applied by the teaching operator is facilitated")
stiffness regarding driving of the joint of the robot arm (See at least ¶0037 via "Specifically, either one or both of a virtual viscosity coefficient and virtual elasticity coefficient of the control parameters of a joint shaft to be driven for the movement are adjusted. At this time, the adjustment amount of the parameter of the impedance control system may be changed for each joint in accordance with the ratio and magnitude of the movement amount of each joint shaft.").
However, although Takahashi discloses a sensor that is used in the human-robot interaction: "six-axis force sensor" as per ¶0037, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the pressure sensor which is provided at a position using a joint of a robot arm as a reference.
Nevertheless, Romo--who is directed towards systems and methods for moving or manipulating robotic arms--discloses: a pressure sensor (See at least ¶0321 via " In a step 4140, the first robotic arm may detect a user exerted force on the first robotic arm. The first robotic arm may comprise one or more links and joints; and, the first robotic arm may comprise a torque sensor coupled to the joint or a tactile and/or force sensor coupled to the link, such as by being placed over the outer surface of the link.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Takahashi in view of Romo's tactile sensor as an alternate method to detect human applied forces: "When using tactile sensors, sensors which are activated may directly show the location of the external force…The algorithm may read the type of input given, such as whether an input is a slow push, quick tap, a shake, or a pull" [Romo ¶0322], thus allowing for the tactile input to correspond to the control similarly to the six-axis force sensor of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 18, Takahashi discloses:
A robot control system, comprising: a robot arm; (See at least Figures 1-2)
a (See at least ¶0037 via " For example, as indicated by P0 at the left end of FIG. 5, when a gripped workpiece 51 gripped by the hand 12 is not in contact with and is separated from an assembly target workpiece 52, the reaction force detected by the six-axis force sensor is 0, and in this case, movement in the direction of the manipulating force applied by the teaching operator is facilitated")
a stiffness control unit that controls stiffness regarding driving of the joint of the robot arm on a basis of a detection result of the (See at least ¶0037 via "Specifically, either one or both of a virtual viscosity coefficient and virtual elasticity coefficient of the control parameters of a joint shaft to be driven for the movement are adjusted. At this time, the adjustment amount of the parameter of the impedance control system may be changed for each joint in accordance with the ratio and magnitude of the movement amount of each joint shaft.").
However, although Takahashi discloses a sensor that is used in the human-robot interaction: "six-axis force sensor" as per ¶0037, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the pressure sensor which is provided at a position using a joint of a robot arm as a reference.
Nevertheless, Romo--who is directed towards systems and methods for moving or manipulating robotic arms--discloses: a pressure sensor (See at least ¶0321 via " In a step 4140, the first robotic arm may detect a user exerted force on the first robotic arm. The first robotic arm may comprise one or more links and joints; and, the first robotic arm may comprise a torque sensor coupled to the joint or a tactile and/or force sensor coupled to the link, such as by being placed over the outer surface of the link.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Takahashi in view of Romo's tactile sensor as an alternate method to detect human applied forces: "When using tactile sensors, sensors which are activated may directly show the location of the external force…The algorithm may read the type of input given, such as whether an input is a slow push, quick tap, a shake, or a pull" [Romo ¶0322], thus allowing for the tactile input to correspond to the control similarly to the six-axis force sensor of Takahashi.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200147787 A1) and Romo et. al. (US 20160184032 A1) in view of Khansari Zadeh (US 20180222045 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 5.
Furthermore, Takahashi discloses: wherein the storage unit stores the stiffness and the track in association with each other (See at least table Figure 4 and ¶0039 via "In addition, in the present embodiment, when teaching a work trajectory, the parameter of the impedance control system of each joint shaft can be adjusted on the basis of the reaction force from the work target object measured by the force sensor…Specifically, adjustment is made by changing the virtual viscosity coefficient and the virtual elasticity coefficient of the control parameters of the joint shaft of the robot arm driven to move the hand 12 in the direction of the manipulating force applied to the handling portion 13 by the teaching operator, such that the movement becomes more difficult. At this time, the adjustment amount of the parameter of the impedance control system may be changed for each joint in accordance with the ratio and magnitude of the movement amount of each joint shaft.").
However, Modified Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, but Khansari Zadeh--who is directed towards robotic control--discloses: in a case where a direct teaching mode on which an operator moves the link and stores a predetermined track is selected (¶0003 via "…parameters may be assigned (i.e., stored in association with in one or more computer readable media) to each of a plurality of data points of a demonstration." and also ¶0107 via "…each group of data points being based on sensor data from a corresponding one of the kinesthetic teachings. The data points can be represented … and their corresponding stiffness property…" and "…demonstration trajectories can be shown from the robot's point of view, by the user guiding the robot passively through the task (i.e., kinesthetic teaching)").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Takahashi in view of Khansari Zadeh's teaching mode where the track is stored in order for the robot(s) to be able to efficiently learn and repeat movements/maneuvers that are taught by a user: "the user may physically manipulate a robot arm to cause a reference point of an end effector of the robot arm to traverse the particular trajectory and that particular traversed trajectory may thereafter be repeatable by the robot arm" [Khansari Zadeh ¶0001].
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 4.
However, modified Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, but Khansari Zadeh--who is directed towards robotic control--discloses: wherein the stiffness control unit controls the stiffness to increase along with an increase in pressure detected by the pressure sensor (See at least ¶0108 via "For example, the stiffness property of a data point can be based on a direct mapping from sensor data of a pressure sensor of the robot (e.g., mounted on a “wrist” of the robot). For instance, the “harder” a user presses on the pressure sensor during a demonstration at the time of the data point, the greater the stiffness property can be")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Takahashi in view of Khansari Zadeh's stiffness increase with pressure increase in order to improve robotic control and interaction: "…improvements in generating such a control policy that regulates both motion control and robot interaction with the environment and/or that includes a learned non-parametric potential function and/or dissipative field" [Khansari Zadeh ¶0005].
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200147787 A1) and Romo et. al. (US 20160184032 A1) in view of Linnell et. al (US 20160136815 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1.
Furthermore, Takahashi discloses: the stiffness set by the stiffness control unit (See at least Figure 2 via "Impedance Control System Parameter Setting Switching Portion 34" and ¶0037 via "That is, the robot controller 14 adjusts the parameter of the impedance control system such that the robot arm is more easily moved in the direction of the manipulating force applied to the handling portion 13 by the teaching operator. Specifically, either one or both of a virtual viscosity coefficient and virtual elasticity coefficient of the control parameters of a joint shaft to be driven for the movement are adjusted.")
However, Modified Takahashi does not explicitly disclose the notification control unit.
Nevertheless, Linnell--who is directed towards closed-loop control of robotic operation--discloses: further comprising a notification control unit that controls notification (See at least ¶0149 via "For example, one or more joint parameters of a robotic device may change after the control system adjusts operations of the device. The adjusted joint parameters may approach a predefined constraint for the robotic device. The HUD may then display the adjusted joint parameters as well as a warning signal (e.g., by displaying the potentially problematic parameters in red) to a user of the computing device.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Takahashi in view of Linnell's notification unit in order to enable the user/operator to be aware of the current parameters of the robot joints, such as in a case where the parameters could be potentially problematic: "displaying the potentially problematic parameters in red" [Linnell ¶0149], thus allowing the user to see where potential problems could occur and take action accordingly.
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 9.
Furthermore, Takahashi discloses: the value of stiffness (See at least Figure 4 and ¶0037 via the virtual elasticity coefficient).
However, Modified Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, but Linnell discloses: wherein the notification control unit controls at least one of display of a value of the stiffness, display of a gauge according to a level of the stiffness, display of a color according to a level of the stiffness, or audio output of the stiffness (See at least ¶0149 via "For instance, if the visual simulation contains a HUD as previously described, numerical values within the HUD may be updated based on received data streams from a control system as well…The HUD may then display the adjusted joint parameters as well as a warning signal (e.g., by displaying the potentially problematic parameters in red) to a user of the computing device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Takahashi in view of Linnell's displaying of the values/parameters in order to enable the user/operator to be visually aware of the current parameters of the robot joints, such as in a case where the parameters could be potentially problematic: "displaying the potentially problematic parameters in red" [Linnell ¶0149], thus allowing the user to visually see potential problems could occur and take action accordingly.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200147787 A1), Romo et. al. (US 20160184032 A1), and Linnell et. al (US 20160136815 A1) in view of Zimmermann et. al. (US 20160052128 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 9.
Furthermore, Linnell discloses: the notification control unit (See at least ¶0149 via "For instance, if the visual simulation contains a HUD as previously described, numerical values within the HUD may be updated based on received data streams from a control system as well…The HUD may then display the adjusted joint parameters as well as a warning signal (e.g., by displaying the potentially problematic parameters in red) to a user of the computing device.)
However, Modified Takahashi does not disclose, but Zimmermann--who is directed towards a method for programming and industrial robot--discloses: wherein the (See at least ¶0066-¶0067 via "By actuating an input device, the rigidity parameterization valid for the selected movement record is adopted, without movement of the manipulator arm 2. The manipulator arm 2 thus remains in the depicted test pose. However, in the test pose the manipulator arm 2 has the rigidity it would also have there in the execution pose (FIG. 2) in accordance with the selected movement record in the program…After actuation of an enabling switch, the programmer can verify the set rigidities by touching the manipulator arm 2 in the test pose. The setting of the rigidities of the manipulator arm 2 corresponds exactly to the settings according to the selected movement record in the program.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Takahashi in view of Zimmermann to include the set stiffness/rigidity in the test pose/during teaching in order to allow the user to verify that the rigidity parameters are correct, since rigidity is more easily felt than understood based on values: "In addition there is the fact that, while people generally have a good mental image of physical quantities, such as “2 mm” or “2 m/s,” this is less likely to be the case for rigidities, such e.g. “10 N/mm” or “3 Nm/rad.”" [¶0022 Zimmermann], and also so the user can make adjustments as needed: "The programmer can modify the rigidity parameters and immediately, in particular directly, feel the changes." [¶0068 Zimmermann].
Regarding Claim 12, Modified Takahashi discloses the information processing apparatus according to Claim 11.
Furthermore, Linnell discloses: the notification control unit (See at least ¶0149 via "For instance, if the visual simulation contains a HUD as previously described, numerical values within the HUD may be updated based on received data streams from a control system as well…The HUD may then display the adjusted joint parameters as well as a warning signal (e.g., by displaying the potentially problematic parameters in red) to a user of the computing device.)
However, Modified Takahashi does not disclose, but Zimmermann discloses: wherein the increase along with an increase in the stiffness set by the stiffness control unit (See at least ¶0067 via "After actuation of an enabling switch, the programmer can verify the set rigidities by touching the manipulator arm 2 in the test pose. The setting of the rigidities of the manipulator arm 2 corresponds exactly to the settings according to the selected movement record in the program. Thus, for logical reasons, the user touches the manipulator arm 2 at the last link 12, as shown in FIG. 3, or at the robot flange, to verify the set rigidity by manual touching an/or moving")
However, although Zimmermann does not explicitly disclose the stiffness for teaching to increase along with the stiffness set by the stiffness control unit, Zimmermann discloses that "The setting of the rigidities of the manipulator arm 2 corresponds exactly to the settings according to the selected movement record in the program" [¶0067] which renders it obvious that the teaching stiffness (test pose rigidity) is increased when the stiffness (rigidity/settings according to selected movement) is also increased.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified Takahashi in view of Zimmermann to include the set stiffness/rigidity in the test pose/during teaching increasing along with an increase in the stiffness (rigidity/settings according to selected movement) in order to allow the user to verify that the rigidity parameters are correct while in the test mode, so the user can safely verify the parameters: "…even when an approach of the hand 13 to the manipulator arm 2 may in principle be possible, but would be too dangerous to actually carry out" [¶0064 Zimmermann], and also so the user can make adjustments as needed: "The programmer can modify the rigidity parameters and immediately, in particular directly, feel the changes." [¶0068 Zimmermann].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA RENEE DOROS whose telephone number is (703)756-1415. The examiner can normally be reached Generally: M-F (8-5) 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 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 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.
/K.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657