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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Amendment to claims 1, 3 and 4 have been considered and do not require invoking 35 USC 112(f) interpretation. Therefore, the interpretation has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant stated:
Zhang, however, does not disclose generating a plurality of auxiliary files for generating a PLC program for controlling a robot by a programmable logic controller based on operation information that is a result of simulation of a robot program.
Shimakawa is relied upon in the Office Action for its disclosure of a programmable logic controller that controls a robot. Shimakawa, however, does not disclose generating a plurality of auxiliary files for generating a PLC program for controlling a robot by a programmable logic controller based on a result of simulation of a robot, as recited in Applicant's independent claim .
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang teaches of generating a plurality of auxiliary files for generating a
Robot controller 54 of Zhang is not explicitly disclosed to be a programmable logic controller. Therefore, Zhang teaches of every element of limitation argued above except that generated program is a PLC program for a programmable logic controller.
The deficiency is addressed through Shimakawa. Shimakawa teaches a programmable logic controller for robot control ([0029], disclosing a programmable logic controller serving as a robot controller. [0077], disclosing performing verification of a robot control program)
Shimakawa and Zhang are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., robot control. As Zhang teaches of generating auxiliary files for robot controller to control a robot, and Shimakawa teaches of a PLC i.e., a robot controller to control a robot, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Zhang to use programmable logic controller as taught by Shimakawa as diverse industrial automation controller to control multiple entities. See Shimakawa [0029].
As modification through Shimakawa enables Zhang’s art to be used for robot controllers that have been used by industry, the modification is obvious. Therefore, rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 is maintained.
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, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20170351245) in view of Shimakawa (US 20190051049).
For claim 1, Zhang teaches: A simulation device (abstract, disclosing simulating execution of robot control), comprising: a processor ([0009-0010], disclosing a computing device) configured to:
perform a simulation of operation of a robot, based on an operation condition of the robot (abstract, disclosing simulating execution of robot control. [0021], disclosing simulate the execution of robot control code by a controller to control a robot to produce a part. Producing a part is operation condition);
acquire operation information of the robot, based on a result of the simulation by the processor ([0010], disclosing perform a simulation 52 which simulates execution of the robot control code by a robot controller. The simulation may be used to generate a virtual part file including virtual part net geometry parameters and virtual part material addition parameters. analyzing to determine if a tangible part is produces i.e., result of simulation result); and
generate a plurality of auxiliary files for generating a program described in a language that can be read by a
wherein the plurality of auxiliary files include a program file in which a function representing the operation of the robot is described, a variable file in which a definition of a variable is described, and a function block file in which a content of the operation of the robot corresponding to the function in the program file is described ([0009], disclosing one or more input files may collectively or individually include net part geometry parameters (e.g. part dimension and/or shape information), material addition parameters, and robot system parameters. Net part geometry parameters (e.g. part dimension and/or shape information), material addition parameters, and robot system parameters are interpreted as a program file in which a function representing the operation of the robot is described, a variable file in which a definition of a variable is described, and a function block file in which a content of the operation of the robot corresponding to the function in the program file is described)
Zhang does not explicitly disclose robot controller 54 to be a programmable logic controller.
Shimakawa teaches a programmable logic controller for robot control ([0029], disclosing a programmable logic controller serving as a robot controller. [0077], disclosing performing verification of a robot control program)
Shimakawa and Zhang are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Zhang to use programmable logic controller as taught by Shimakawa as diverse industrial automation controller to control multiple entities. See Shimakawa [0029].
For claim 3, modified Zhang teaches: The simulation device of claim 1, further comprising a personal computer the processor, wherein the processor, by being driven based on a program for performing the simulation, is configured to perform the simulation of operation of the robot, acquire the operation information of the robot, and generate the plurality of auxiliary files for generating the PLC program ([0010], disclosing Computing device 56 is structured to perform a simulation 52 which simulates execution of the robot control code by a robot controller. Computing device 56 is further structured to analyze the virtual part net geometry parameters. And the computing device 56 may be operated to modify the one or more input files to generate second robot control code).
For claim 4, modified Zhang teaches: A control system, comprising: the simulation device of claim 1; and the programmable logic controller, wherein the programmable logic controller includes a processor configured to generate a program for driving the programmable logic controller, based on the plurality of auxiliary files ([0013], disclosing computing device 52 and robot controller 54 may be structured to share common resources or may be implemented together in the same computing device or system).
Conclusion
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 ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights