DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination received 14 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibashi (US Pub. No. 2014/0172153) in view of Kassow (US Pub. No. 2013/0255426).
As per Claim 1, Nishibashi discloses a program creation device (as per numerical control device 2 in Fig. 2), comprising:
a processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) configured to adjust (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) an operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) in an operation program (as per “machining program” in S1 in Fig. 3) of a machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1), based on an orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of a control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1) of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) in a movement path (as per “path derivation unit 12” in Fig. 2) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119),
wherein
the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) by executing an operation form change function (as per S36, S38; as per determining dashed smooth curve corresponding to “INTERPOLATION INTERVAL” in Fig. 9) for changing an operation form (as per corner portion at t[3] in Fig. 9) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶2-5, 40-119),
the operation form (as per “corner portion” in ¶69) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) includes at least one of a linear movement (as per path sections p2(s) and p(3)s in Fig. 9) of the control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1), {an arc movement of the control objective part} or {each axis movement of the control objective part}.
Nishibashi does not expressly disclose wherein:
the operation form change function changes the operation form of the linear movement of the control objective part to the operation form of each axis movement, and
each axis movement is movement of the control objective part in which a movement path of the control objective part is not constrained by linear movement or arc movement and an actuator of each joint axis operates independently.
Kassow discloses a programming/control unit (11a) that provides a user interface (11) for programming and controlling a robot (1) that features arm sections (4, 5, 7, 8), joints (2’, 3, 3’, 9, 9’, 10, 10’, 11, 11’), and a tool (12) (Figs. 1, 7; ¶76-80, 86-88). Each joint includes a motor (23) under the control of the programming/control unit (11a) (Figs. 5, 7; ¶83, 86). The user interface (11) provides a menu portion (31) including: an icon (32) for specifying joint configurations (as per 93-95), coordinates (as per 107-109), and speed (109) of the tool (12) (Fig. 11(a); ¶96); an icon (33) for specifying orientations (as per 97, 98) and speed (96) of the tool (12) (Fig. 11(b); ¶97); and an icon (34) for specifying angular orientations (as per 37-42) and speed (as per 105) of each joint (Figs. 10(a), 10(b); ¶93-95). In this way, Kassow discloses wherein:
the operation form change function (as per pressing 34 from 32 in Fig. 10(a), 10(b), 11(a), 11(b)) changes the operation form (as per 34 from 32) of the linear movement (as per 32) of the control objective part (12) to the operation form of each axis movement (as per 34) (Figs. 1, 10(a)-11(b); ¶77-80, 93-97), and
each axis movement (as per 34) is movement of the control objective part (12) in which a movement path (as per control of robot (1) as per icon 34) of the control objective part (12) is not constrained by linear movement (as per 32) or arc movement (as per 33) and an actuator (23 in Fig. 5) of each joint axis operates independently (as per 37-42) (Figs. 1, 5, 10(a)-11(b), 24; ¶77-80, 82, 93-97, 116).
In this way, Kassow facilitates quick and simple programming by any person, not only a person with special skills (¶4, 25, 85). Like Nishibashi, Kassow is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Kassow, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kassow to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating quick and simple programming.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to detect a section (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73) in which the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) is equal to or greater than a threshold value (as per “a variation of the direction” and “a variation rate” in ¶73) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a keyboard configured to input the threshold value of the orientation change of the control objective part per unit distance or unit time.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Kassow. Kassow further discloses a keyboard (as per “keyboard” in ¶25, 95) configured to input the threshold value (as per operations responsive to triggers set via 46-48) of the orientation change (as per 17-21 in Fig. 8) of the control objective part (12) per unit distance (as per 47 in Fig. 12) or unit time (as per 46, 48 in Fig. 12) (Figs. 7-8, 12; ¶25, 86-90, 95, 99).
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Kassow, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kassow to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating quick and simple programming.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to detect the section (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73) in which the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) is equal to or greater than the threshold value (as per “a variation of the direction” and “a variation rate” in ¶73), by evaluating sequentially (as per “the posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 tracks variations in the posture of the tool 106” in ¶74) the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) during execution of the operation program (as per “machining program” in S1 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) of a section in which the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) is equal to or greater than a threshold value (as per “a variation of the direction” and “a variation rate” in ¶73) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) by further executing an operating speed change function (as per “so that the velocity becomes continuous” in ¶178) for changing an operating speed (as per “a point at which velocity is discontinuous” in ¶178) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 24-31; ¶2-5, 40-119, 137-153, 178).
As per Claim 9, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 8. Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to change, by the operating speed change function (as per “so that the velocity becomes continuous” in ¶178), a speed form (as per “the intervening variable time function derivation unit 18 obtains an acceleration/deceleration curve … which continuously varies so as to not exceed the stepped velocity curve represented by the intervening variable velocity upper limit function based on an allowable velocity” in ¶146) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) and a speed parameter (as per “allowable velocity” in ¶146) corresponding to the speed form (as per “the intervening variable time function derivation unit 18 obtains an acceleration/deceleration curve … which continuously varies so as to not exceed the stepped velocity curve represented by the intervening variable velocity upper limit function based on an allowable velocity” in ¶146) (Figs. 1-5, 24-25; ¶2-5, 40-119, 139-147).
As per Claim 14, Nishibashi discloses a controller (2) (Figs. 1-2; ¶40-41, 51-53), comprising:
a processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) configured to adjust (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) an operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) of a machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1), based on an orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of a control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1) of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) in a movement path (as per “path derivation unit 12” in Fig. 20) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119); and
a control circuit (22) configured to control an operation of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) according to the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) adjusted (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) by the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119),
wherein
the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) by executing an operation form change function (as per S36, S38; as per determining dashed smooth curve corresponding to “INTERPOLATION INTERVAL” in Fig. 9) for changing an operation form (as per corner portion at t[3] in Fig. 9) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶2-5, 40-119),
the operation form (as per “corner portion” in ¶69) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) includes at least one of a linear movement (as per path sections p2(s) and p(3)s in Fig. 9) of the control objective part (106) (as per 106 Fig. 1), {an arc movement of the control objective part, or each axis movement of the control objective part}.
Nishibashi does not expressly disclose wherein:
the operation form change function changes the operation form of a linear movement of the control objective part to the operation form of each axis movement, and
each axis movement is movement of the control objective part in which a movement path of the control objective part is not constrained by linear movement or arc movement and an actuator of each joint axis operates independently.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Kassow.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Kassow, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kassow to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating quick and simple programming.
As per Claim 15, Nishibashi discloses a mechanical system (Fig. 1; ¶41), comprising:
a machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-2; ¶41-53);
a processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) configured to adjust (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) an operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1), based on an orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of a control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1) of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) in a movement path (as per “path derivation unit 12” in Fig. 2) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119); and
a control circuit (22) configured to control an operation of the machine (as per 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116 in Fig. 1) according to the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) adjusted (as per S3-S7 in Fig. 3) by the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119),
wherein
the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to adjust (as per S36, S38 in Fig. 4) the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) by executing an operation form change function (as per S36, S38; as per determining dashed smooth curve corresponding to “INTERPOLATION INTERVAL” in Fig. 9) for changing an operation form (as per corner portion at t[3] in Fig. 9) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) (Figs. 1-5, 9; ¶2-5, 40-119),
the operation form (as per “corner portion” in ¶69) of the operation instruction (as per “pre-interpolation path” in S2 in Fig. 3) includes at least one of a linear movement (as per path sections p2(s) and p(3)s in Fig. 9) of the control objective part (as per 106 Fig. 1), {an arc movement of the control objective part}, or {each axis movement of the control objective part}.
Nishibashi does not expressly disclose wherein:
the operation form change function changes the operation form of a linear movement of the control objective part to the operation form of each axis movement, and
each axis movement is movement of the control objective part in which a movement path of the control objective part is not constrained by linear movement or arc movement and an actuator of each joint axis operates independently.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Kassow.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi and Kassow, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kassow to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating quick and simple programming.
Claim 4-5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibashi (US Pub. No. 2014/0172153) in view of Kassow (US Pub. No. 2013/0255426), further in view of Sugaya (US Pub. No. 2019/0221037).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a display configured to display an operation trajectory that highlights at least one selected from a group of the section detected by the processor and teaching points constituting the section.
Sugaya discloses a robotic system (1001) (Fig. 13; ¶142-146) operated by control data verified by a simulator system (Figs. 1-2; ¶34-37). The simulator system includes a display unit (102), an operating unit (103), input/output unit (104), and a controller (101) (Fig. 1; ¶36-37). In various embodiments, the input/output unit (104) includes an analysis condition setting area (109) for user selection of analysis conditions (Figs. 3, 9A, 10A; ¶38-39, 41-42, 48, 51-58, 63, 111-118). In one embodiment, the display unit (102) outputs joint configuration data in a chronological sequence corresponding to movements between teaching points with specified highlighted bands (113, 114) indicating warning events (Figs. 6A-D; ¶75-91). Like Nishibashi, Sugaya is concerned with robot programming systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi, Kassow, and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kassow and Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by: facilitating quick and simple programming; and adapting the system to indicate warning events. Applying the teachings of Kassow and Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system that operates “a display configured to display an operation trajectory that highlights at least one selected from a group of the detected section by the processor and teaching points constituting the section” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to include a display as per Sugaya.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi further discloses wherein the processor (as per operation processing unit 6 in Fig. 2) is configured to detect the section (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73) in which the orientation change (as per “The posture adjustment information derivation unit 16 specifies a posture adjustment location where a direction of a tool axis vector extending from a tip point toward a midair point corresponding to the tip point varies suddenly among the post-local interpolation tip path and the post-local interpolation midair path, extracts a posture adjustment interval that is an interval of an intervening variable before and after the specified posture adjustment location, and obtains posture adjustment information for adjusting a posture of the tool 106 in the posture adjustment interval so that a variation of the direction of the tool axis vector in the posture adjustment interval becomes gradual” in ¶73) of the control objective part (as per 106 in Fig. 1) per unit distance (as per “posture adjustment interval” in ¶73-74, 117-119) or unit time (as per “reference unit time” in ¶76-77) is equal to or greater than the threshold value (as per “a variation of the direction” and “a variation rate” in ¶73) (Figs. 1-5; ¶2-5, 40-119).
Nishibashi does not expressly disclose wherein the section is detected by evaluating a distance between teaching points in the operation program, an operating speed or an operating time between the teaching points, and the orientation change of the control objective part between the teaching points.
See rejection of Claim 4 for discussion of teachings of Sugaya. Sugaya further discloses an analysis unit (106) that executes an analysis process on the robot operation described by the robot control data in the form of teaching point data (Figs. 2-4; ¶36, 48-50, 57-59).
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi, Kassow, and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kassow and Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by: facilitating quick and simple programming; and adapting the system to indicate warning events. Applying the teachings of Kassow and Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system that operates “wherein the section is detected by evaluating a distance between teaching points in the operation program, an operating speed or an operating time between the teaching points, and the orientation change of the control objective part between the teaching points” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to analyze intervals between teaching points as entered according to Sugaya.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a display configured to display the operation program that highlights the adjusted operation instruction.
Sugaya discloses a robotic system (1001) (Fig. 13; ¶142-146) operated by control data verified by a simulator system (Figs. 1-2; ¶34-37). The simulator system includes a display unit (102), input/output unit (104), and a controller (101) (Fig. 1; ¶36-37). In various embodiments, the input/output unit (104) includes an analysis condition setting area (109) (Figs. 3, 9A, 10A; ¶38-39, 41-42, 48, 51-58, 63, 111-118). The display unit (102) outputs joint configuration data in a chronological sequence corresponding to movements between teaching points with specified highlighted bands (113, 114) indicating warning events (Figs. 6A-D; ¶75-91). In this way, a user specifies threshold values informing simulation (¶58-67). Like Nishibashi, Sugaya is concerned with robot programming systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi, Kassow, and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kassow and Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by: facilitating quick and simple programming; and adapting the system to indicate warning events. Applying the teachings of Kassow and Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system that operates “a display configured to display the operation program that highlights the adjusted operation instruction” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to display data as per Sugaya.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a display configured to display an execution confirmation of automatic adjustment of the operation instruction.
Sugaya discloses a robotic system (1001) (Fig. 13; ¶142-146) operated by control data verified by a simulator system (Figs. 1-2; ¶34-37). The simulator system includes a display unit (102), input/output unit (104), and a controller (101) (Fig. 1; ¶36-37). In various embodiments, the input/output unit (104) includes an analysis condition setting area (109) (Figs. 3, 9A, 10A; ¶38-39, 41-42, 48, 51-58, 63, 111-118). The display unit (102) outputs playback of an animation of the simulated robot including appropriate updated points such that the user can confirm specified events (Fig. 12; ¶136-140). In this way, a user specifies threshold values informing simulation (¶58-67). Like Nishibashi, Sugaya is concerned with robot programming systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi, Kassow, and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kassow and Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by: facilitating quick and simple programming; and adapting the system to indicate warning events. Applying the teachings of Kassow and Sugaya to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system that operates “a display configured to display an execution confirmation of automatic adjustment of the operation instruction” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to display data as per Sugaya.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishibashi (US Pub. No. 2014/0172153) in view of Kassow (US Pub. No. 2013/0255426), further in view of Yui (US Pub. No. 2020/0094408).
As per Claim 11, the combination of Nishibashi and Kassow teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nishibashi does not expressly disclose a display configured to display the operation program that simultaneously displays the operation instruction before the processor adjusts the operation instruction and the operation instruction after the processor adjusts the operation instruction.
Yui discloses a robot system (100) that includes a robot (10), a controller (20), and a teaching pendant (30) (Fig. 1; ¶29). The teaching pendant (30) includes a display (31) that includes a 3D image of the robot (10) including a first motion trajectory (LN1) and a second motion trajectory (LN2) (Fig. 6; ¶69-74). In this way, the operator can visually recognize changes to the trajectory of the robot (10) (¶74). Like Nishibashi, Yui is concerned with robot programming systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nishibashi, Kassow, and Yui, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kassow and Yui to the system of Nishibashi since doing so would enhance the system by: facilitating quick and simple programming; and allowing the operator to visually recognize changes Applying the teachings of Kassow and Yui to the system of Nishibashi would result in a system with “a display configured to display the operation program that simultaneously displays the operation instruction before the processor adjusts the operation instruction and the operation instruction after the processor adjusts the operation instruction” in that the system of Nishibashi would be adapted to visually indicate changes as per Yui.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained in view of the amendments because “a function that changes from a linear movement to each axis movement is not disclosed in the cited portions of Nishibashi” and, as such, “Nishibashi does not disclose ‘the operation form change function [as per the amendments]’” (page 7 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Nishibashi and the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 102 are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 102, Applicant argues (page 7 of Amendment):
Furthermore, referring to paragraph [0069] of Nishibashi, interpolation is performed at the command point t[3] in Fig. 9 since the primary differential value and the secondary differential value with respect to the intervening variable are discontinuous at the command point t[3], which is positioned at an apex of the corner position. See, Nishibashi, paragraph [0069]. However, this interpolation is performed to prevent the occurrence of a discontinuity of the path and is not capable of suppressing a rapid orientation change as discussed in paragraph [0040] of the present application. Therefore, Nishibashi does not disclose the advantageous effect provided by the embodiment(s) of the claimed subject matter.
However, no claim recites “suppressing a rapid orientation change” as per Applicant’s argument. As such, Applicant’s argument is directed to unclaimed embodiments and is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Sugaya was not applied in a manner that attempted to make up for the above-identified deficiencies” (page 8 of Amendment) and “Yui was not applied in a manner that attempted to make up for the above-identified deficiencies” (page 9 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Sugaya or Yui teaches or suggests limitations as per the amended claim language. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights