DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 12 November 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 5-7 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Pub. No. 2018/0043414) in view of Yamauchi (WO 2021/100268 A1; citations to corresponding US Pub. No. 2022/0379473).
As per Claim 1, Watanabe discloses a robot operation determination device (8) (Figs. 1-2; ¶24, 31-32) comprising:
an input device (9) comprising a connector configured to be connected (as per arrow from output part 12 to controller 3 in Fig. 1; as per arrow from 3D DRAWING DATA to input part 9 in Fig. 1) to a robot controller (3) or a CAD device (as per “three-dimensional drawing data drawn with a three-dimensional drawing program, such as a 3D-CAD software” in ¶30) through which an operation program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1; as per “The computer terminal 8 which creates the operating command” in ¶32) comprising position information (as per “3D DRAWING DATA” in Fig. 1, as per “Alternatively or additionally, the postures of the tools 21 and 22 may be set by manual inputs” in ¶35) of at least two teaching points (as per P2i, P2i+1) for operating a robot (2) is entered (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; 24-35, 46-49), or {a reader configured to read the operation program};
at least one memory (11) that stores an allowable traveling distance (as per L1i) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; ¶24-35, 45-49);
at least one processor (10) comprising hardware (as per “CPU” in ¶32), the at least one processor (10) being configured to:
calculate (as per S5), on a basis of the entered operation program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1; as per “The computer terminal 8 which creates the operating command” in ¶32), distance (as per L2i) between adjacent teaching points (as per P2i, P2i+1) in the operation program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1; as per “The computer terminal 8 which creates the operating command” in ¶32); and
determine (as per S6) whether the calculated distance (as per L2i) is larger than the allowable traveling distance (as per L1i) stored in the at least one memory (11) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; ¶24-35, 45-50) or {whether the calculated changes in the angles are larger than the allowable angle changes stored in the at least one memory}; and
a display (13) that, in response to the calculated distance (as per L2i) being determined to be larger than the allowable traveling distance (as per L1i) or {the calculated changes in the angles being determined to be larger than the allowable angle changes}, displays (as per S11 via S7-S10) the determination (as per S6) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; ¶24-35, 45-59, 64).
Watanabe does not expressly disclose:
wherein the memory stores allowable angle changes; and
wherein the processor is configured to calculate changes in angles of axes of the robot between the adjacent teaching points.
Yamauchi discloses a trajectory planning device (100) that plans trajectory points (P1 to Pn) for a robot arm (Fig. 1; ¶29). Each trajectory point (P) indicates a combination of three-dimensional positions of each joint and the hand position of the robot arm (101) as well as postures of each of the links (L1 to Lm) and the hand (102) that change depending on operation of each of the joints (J1 to Jm) (Fig. 1; ¶30). Planning device (100) includes a hand posture variation candidate calculation method in which a database (DB 216) includes as fields: a roll angle maximum displacement (801), a pitch angle maximum displacement (802), a yaw angle maximum displacement (803), and a maximum displacement (803) (Fig. 8; ¶58). In operation, planning device (100) calculates a trajectory point candidate (Pnext) in view of the information in the database (DB 216) (Fig. 14-15, ¶82-96). In this way, the trajectory points satisfy specified constraints (¶125). Like Watanabe, Yamauchi is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Watanabe and Yamauchi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Yamauchi to the system of Watanabe since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system in view of specified constraints. Applying the teachings of Yamauchi to the system of Watanabe would result in a system that operates
“wherein the memory stores allowable angle changes” in that operations as per Watanabe would be informed by maximum angle constraint information as per Yamauchi; and
“wherein the processor is configured to calculate changes in angles of axes of the robot between the adjacent teaching points” in that operations as per Watanabe would be informed by maximum angle constraint information as per Yamauchi.
As per Claim 6, Watanabe discloses a robot operation determination method (Fig. 6; ¶46-59, 64) comprising:
entering (via input part 9) an operation program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1; as per “The computer terminal 8 which creates the operating command” in ¶32) comprising position information (as per “3D DRAWING DATA” in Fig. 1, as per “Alternatively or additionally, the postures of the tools 21 and 22 may be set by manual inputs” in ¶35) of at least two teaching points (as per P2i, P2i+1) for operating a robot (2);
calculating (as per S5), on a basis of the entered operation program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1; as per “The computer terminal 8 which creates the operating command” in ¶32), a distance (as per L2i) between adjacent teaching points (as per P2i, P2i+1) in the operation program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1; as per “The computer terminal 8 which creates the operating command” in ¶32) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; ¶24-35, 45-49);
determining (as per S6) whether the calculated (as per S5) distance (as per L2i) is larger than a stored (via memory part 11) allowable traveling distance (as per L1i) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; ¶24-35, 45-50) or {whether the calculated changes in the angles are larger than the stored allowable angle changes}; and
displaying (as per S11 via S7-S10), in response to the calculated (as per S5) distance (as per L2i) being determined (as per S6) to be larger than the allowable traveling distance (as per L1i) or {the calculated changes in the angles being determined to be larger than the allowable angle changes}, the determination (as per S6) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; ¶24-35, 45-59, 64).
Watanabe does not expressly disclose calculating changes in angles of axes of the robot between the adjacent teaching points.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Yamauchi.
Therefore, from these teachings of Watanabe and Yamauchi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Yamauchi to the system of Watanabe since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system in view of specified constraints. Applying the teachings of Yamauchi to the system of Watanabe would result in a system that operates by “calculating changes in angles of axes of the robot between the adjacent teaching points” in that operations as per Watanabe would be informed by maximum angle constraint information as per Yamauchi.
As per Claim 7, Watanabe discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (as per “storage medium” in ¶33; as per claim 5) storing a robot operation determination program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1) for causing a computer (10) to execute a process (Figs. 1-2, 6; ¶24, 31-33, 46-59, 64) of:
entering (via input part 9) an operation program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1; as per “The computer terminal 8 which creates the operating command” in ¶32) comprising position information (as per “3D DRAWING DATA” in Fig. 1, as per “Alternatively or additionally, the postures of the tools 21 and 22 may be set by manual inputs” in ¶35) of at least two teaching points (as per P2i, P2i+1) for operating a robot (2) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; 24-35, 46-49);
calculating (as per S5), on a basis of the entered operation program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1; as per “The computer terminal 8 which creates the operating command” in ¶32), a distance (as per L2i) between adjacent teaching points (as per P2i, P2i+1) in the operation program (as per “OPERATING COMMAND” in Fig. 1; as per “The computer terminal 8 which creates the operating command” in ¶32);
determining (as per S6) whether the calculated (as per S5) distance (as per L2i) is larger than a stored (via memory part 11) allowable traveling distance (as per L1i) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; ¶24-35, 45-50) or {whether the calculated changes in the angles are larger than the stored allowable angle changes}; and
displaying (as per S11 via S7-S10), in response to the calculated (as per S5) distance (as per L2i) being determined to be larger than the allowable traveling distance (as per L1i) or {the calculated changes in the angles being determined to be larger than the allowable angle changes}, the determination (as per S6) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; ¶24-35, 45-59, 64).
Watanabe does not expressly disclose calculating changes in angles of axes of the robot between the adjacent teaching points.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Yamauchi.
Therefore, from these teachings of Watanabe and Yamauchi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Yamauchi to the system of Watanabe since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system in view of specified constraints. Applying the teachings of Yamauchi to the system of Watanabe would result in a system that operates by “calculating changes in angles of axes of the robot between the adjacent teaching points” in that operations as per Watanabe would be informed by maximum angle constraint information as per Yamauchi.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Pub. No. 2018/0043414) in view of Yamauchi (WO 2021/100268 A1; citations to corresponding US Pub. No. 2022/0379473), further in view of Sugaya (US Pub. No. 2019/0221037).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Watanabe and Yamauchi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Watanabe does not expressly disclose wherein the display, in response to the calculated distance being determined to be larger than the allowable traveling distance or the calculated changes in the angles being determined to be larger than the allowable angle changes displays the determination together with a program line number corresponding to the position information on a basis of which the distance and the changes in the angles are calculated.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Yamauchi.
Sugaya discloses a simulator system that includes a display unit (102), an operating unit (103), an input/output unit (104), a storage unit (105), and an analysis unit (106) connected to a controller (101) serving as a display controller outputting display information to be displayed on the display unit (102) (Figs. 1-2; ¶34-36). The display format of the display unit (102) includes a display model display area (107) displaying a 3D model of the robotic system and an event display area (108) that displays information related to operation parameters based on the robot control data (Fig. 3; ¶38-39). In one embodiment, the event display area (108/203) displays a robot program of lines in which instructions describing robot operations to be executed are arrayed in a chronological sequence (Figs. 6A-D; ¶74-80). In this way, the event display area (108/203) permits editing of the codes of the program displayed by an editing process of the user through the user interface (¶84). Like Watanabe, Sugaya is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Watanabe, Yamauchi, and Sugaya, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Yamauchi and Sugaya to the system of Watanabe since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system in view of specified constraints; and facilitating editing of codes of the control program. Applying the teachings of Yamauchi and Sugaya to the system of Watanabe would result in a system that operates “wherein the display, in response to the calculated distance being determined to be larger than the allowable traveling distance or the calculated changes in the angles being determined to be larger than the allowable angle changes displays the determination together with a program line number corresponding to the position information on a basis of which the distance and the changes in the angles are calculated” in that Watanabe would be informed by maximum angle constraint information as per Yamauchi and would be adapted to display data formatted as per Sugaya.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 101 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 5-7 of Amendment). Upon further consideration in view of the amendments, rejections under 35 USC 101 are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 8 of Amendment). Upon further consideration in view of the amendments, rejections under 35 USC 102 are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Yamauchi aims at trajectory generation based on constraints and does not verify an existing operation program” (page 8 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Yamauchi verifies an existing operation program. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion 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 “Yamauchi is directed to a different technical purpose and does not disclose or suggest any processing based on the entered operation program, as recited in the present claims” (page 9 of Amendment). Applicant appears to be arguing that the references are non-analogous to the claimed invention.
According to the MPEP (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I)):
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention … A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that “same field of endeavor” and “reasonably pertinent” are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art.
Applicant’s argument that the references are non-analogous to the claimed invention relies on an Applicant’s assertions as to the problem addressed in the claims. However, Applicant’s argument is silent as to field of endeavor.
The claimed invention is directed a robot operation determination device, method, and program (see claims 1, 6, and 7). Watanabe is directed to a robot operation determination device (Fig. 1), method (Fig. 6), and program (claim 5). Yamauchi is directed to a robot operation determination device (Fig. 1), method (Figs. 14-15), and program (¶155). Accordingly, the claimed invention, Watanabe and Yamauchi are from the same field of endeavor. Watanabe and Yamauchi are therefore analogous art to the claimed invention.
In this way, Applicant’s assertion that Yamauchi is “directed to a different technical purpose” does not establish that the references are non-analogous to the claimed invention. 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 “even if Watanabe and Yamauchi are combined, the resulting system would not perform the claimed process ‘on a basis of the entered operation program,’ and would still lack the claimed determination of angle changes in verifying an existing program” (page 9 of Amendment). However, no rejection relies on teachings of Yamauchi for “on a basis of the entered operation program” limitations. Further, no claim recites “determination of angle changes in verifying an existing program”. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertions are 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 “there is no rational basis or motivation for a person skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Watanabe and Yamauchi, since the two references address different problems - simulation/checking of a program versus generation of a new trajectory” (page 9 of Amendment). As discussed above, Applicant’s argument relies on an Applicant’s assertions that the problem addressed in the claims is processing based on an entered operation program. As discussed above, Watanabe and Yamauchi are from the same field of endeavor and therefore analogous art to the claimed invention. In this way, Applicant’s assertion that Yamauchi is “directed to a different technical purpose” does not establish that the references are non-analogous to the claimed invention. 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 “Like Watanabe, Sugaya fails to teach or suggest evaluation of angle changes of robot axes between adjacent teaching points” (page 9 of Amendment) and “Accordingly, even if the ordinary skilled person combined the teachings of Watanabe and Sugaya, the claimed device or method could not result) (page 9-10 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Sugaya teaches evaluation of angle changes of robot axes between adjacent teaching points. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertions are 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 “Watanabe and Sugaya fail to teach or suggest a robot operation determination device that, by using only the operation program, calculates distances between adjacent teaching points and corresponding joint angle changes, compares those values with stored allowable traveling distance and allowable angle change thresholds, and displays a determination when such thresholds are exceeded” (page 10 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “using only the operation program”. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertions are 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 “The skilled person would have no motivation to look for abrupt travel segments or joint step size constraints, because those issues are not identified as problems in either reference” (page 10 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “abrupt travel segments or joint step size constraints”. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertions are 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 “neither reference addresses, nor motivates the skilled person to address, the problem of excessive per-segment travel or joint step size, nor do they disclose the claimed verification using stored allowable travel and angle thresholds” (page 10 of Amendment). However, no claim recites “excessive per-segment travel or joint step size” or “verification using stored allowable travel and angle thresholds”. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertions are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nihei (US Pub. No. 2006/0271240), Yamaguchi (US Pub. No. 2017/0160705), and Oumi (US Pub. No. 2019/0126470) disclose robot control systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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