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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-7 have been amended. Claim 4 has been canceled and claims 8-9 have been newly added. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (JP2017170581A) in view of Ueyama (US 2008/0249659 A1).
As per claim 1, Inaba discloses: a processing device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract; robot control unit [12] and memories [16]); and
at least one processor a processor configured to execute the instructions to (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract; robot control unit [12] and memories [16]):
determine whether or not a control target has entered an area other than an area that the control target is allowed to enter in an environment of a range including at least a part of the control target (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract & Description; restriction area); and
execute a predetermined process when it is determined that the control target has entered the area other than the area that the control target is allowed to enter (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract & Description; restriction area and controlling the robot’s actions).
Inaba discloses the invention as detailed above.
However, Inaba does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the area that the control target is not allowed to approach or enter based on observation information observed in a real environment; and information within a virtual environment corresponding to a shape and a movement of the control target.
Nevertheless, Ueyama—who is in the same field of endeavor--discloses wherein the area that the control target is not allowed to approach or enter based on observation information observed in a real environment; and information within a virtual environment corresponding to a shape and a movement of the control target (see Ueyama at least fig. 1-5 and Abstract & Field/background/summary of the invention; establishing no-entry zones in 3D working space and on computers using CAD, specifying corresponding points on picked-up images, virtual projected region, first and second closed region and establishing virtual no-entry region to calibrate positional relationship between imaging device and robot).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Ueyama’s establishing of virtual no-entry regions with those corresponding to 3-D working space for a robot with those of Inaba’s method for teaching robots in order to form a more efficient and less burdensome system (i.e., by utilizing images from different directions to establish the no-entry zones and allowing them to be established more precisely).
Motivation for combining Inaba with Ueyama not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from Ueyama (see at least Abstract & Field/background/summary of the invention).
Both Inaba and Ueyama disclose claim 2: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: notify that the control target has entered the area other than the area that the control target is allowed to enter when it is determined that the control target has entered the area other than the area that the control target is allowed to enter (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract & Description; restriction area and controlling the robot’s actions and see Ueyama at least fig. 1-5 and Abstract & Field/background/summary of the invention).
Motivation to combine Inaba with Ueyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Inaba and Ueyama disclose claim 3: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: output an instruction to restrict an operation of the control target or stop the operation of the control target to a controller for controlling the control target when it is determined that the control target has entered the area other than the area that the control target is allowed to enter (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract & Description; restriction area and controlling the robot’s actions and see Ueyama at least fig. 1-5 and Abstract & Field/background/summary of the invention).
Motivation to combine Inaba with Ueyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Inaba and Ueyama disclose claim 5: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: exclude information of the area that the control target is allowed to enter from information of the including at least the part of the control target of the observation information observed in the real environment; and determine whether or not the control target has entered the area other than the area that the control target is allowed to enter on the basis of the information after excluding information of the area that the control target is allowed to enter (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract & Description; restriction area and controlling the robot’s actions and see Ueyama at least fig. 1-5 and Abstract & Field/background/summary of the invention).
Motivation to combine Inaba with Ueyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Inaba and Ueyama disclose claim 6: A processing method comprising:
determining whether or not a control target has entered an area other than an area that the control target is allowed to enter in an environment of a range including at least a part of the control target based on: information including an area that the control target is not allowed to approach or enter based on observation information observed in a real environment; and information within a virtual environment corresponding to a shape and a movement of the control target; and executing a predetermined process when it is determined that the control target has entered the area other than the area that the control target is allowed to enter (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract & Description; restriction area and controlling the robot’s actions and see Ueyama at least fig. 1-5 and Abstract & Field/background/summary of the invention).
Motivation to combine Inaba with Ueyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Inaba and Ueyama disclose claim 7: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program which causes a computer to execute: determining whether or not a control target has entered an area other than an area that the control target is allowed to enter in an environment of a range including at least a part of the control target based on: information including an area that the control target is not allowed to approach or enter based on observation information observed in a real environment; and information within a virtual environment corresponding to a shape and a movement of the control target; and executing a predetermined process when it is determined that the control target has entered the area other than the area that the control target is allowed to enter (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract & Description; restriction area and controlling the robot’s actions and see Ueyama at least fig. 1-5 and Abstract & Field/background/summary of the invention).
Motivation to combine Inaba with Ueyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Inaba and Ueyama disclose claim 8: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: receive the observation information observed in the real environment and the information within the virtual environment corresponding to the shape and the movement of the control target; and determine a system failure based on a difference between the received observation information and the received information within the virtual environment before the at least one processor determines whether or not the control target has entered the area other than the area that the control target is allowed to enter (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract & Description; restriction area and controlling the robot’s actions and see Ueyama at least fig. 1-5 and Abstract & Field/background/summary of the invention).
Motivation to combine Inaba with Ueyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Inaba and Ueyama disclose claim 9: wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire information of a control plan for controlling a controlled unit of the control target; and determine, based on a current state and the information within the virtual environment corresponding to the shape and the movement of the control target, the shape and the movement being based on information of the control plan, whether or not the control target has entered the area other than the area that the control target is allowed to enter before the control target moves (see Inaba at least fig. 1-7 and Abstract & Description; restriction area and controlling the robot’s actions and see Ueyama at least fig. 1-5 and Abstract & Field/background/summary of the invention).
Motivation to combine Inaba with Ueyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
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 MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights