DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications on 2026/07/09. Claims 1, 4 and 5 are amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4 – 6 are pending and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Takeda in view of Moriya fail to disclose the following statements “wherein the degree-of-effect calculation unit is configured to calculate the degree of effect based on a number of stops that have occurred due to the emergency stop of the robot”. Examiner disagrees with the argument that the prior art does not teach “calculate the degree of effect based on a number of stops that have occurred due to the emergency stop of the robot”. Moriya discloses “The certainty of work may be measured by, for example, the number of emergency stops per unit time”. Having a method of determining the quality or consistency of an automated system is well known and understood in the art. Applicant discloses “degree-of-effect” as merely a method for determining how effective an action was, which is synonymous with the “certainty of work” taught by Moriya. The Applicant additionally discloses “based on the number of stops that have occurred due to the emergency stop of the robot”, which is also synonymous with the “number of emergency stops per unit time” taught by Moriya. These two systems are interpreted as the same, and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
See rejection below.
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, 2, and 6 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (US 20170232614 A1), hereinafter referred to as Takeda, in view of Moriya, et. al. (US 20200174473 A1), hereinafter referred to as Moriya.
Regarding Claim 1:
A simulation apparatus comprising:
a degree-of-effect calculation unit that is configured to calculate a degree of effect on an axis of a robot when an emergency stop of the robot occurs; and
Takeda discloses “When the emergency stop of the robot 1 is performed, the robot 1 moves further than the position where the stop command was issued. The swept space 51 in this example includes an area through which the arms 12a, 12b, the wrist part 16, and the work tool 17 passed” (Takeda, [0042]). Takeda discloses “swept space”, which is synonymous with the “degree of effect” disclosed by the applicant.
a display control unit that is configured to displays in a three-dimensional space, an object in accordance with the degree of effect
Takeda discloses “a swept space 53 calculated based on the operation of the robot 1 is displayed on the display part 37.” (Takeda, [0074]).
wherein the degree-of-effect calculation unit is configured to calculate the degree of effect based on a number of stops that have occurred due to the emergency stop of the robot.
Moriya discloses “The certainty of work may be measured by, for example, the number of emergency stops per unit time.” (Moriya, [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Takeda with the “certainty of work” calculation by Moriya because Moriya discloses a method of “evaluating the performance of a[n autonomous] forklift” (Moriya, [0092]), which would be a clear method of improving the safety of the system taught by Takeda. Moriya additionally discloses “Here, an example of the learning process executed by the operation determining unit 407 will be described. The KPI (that is, a parameter for evaluating the performance of the forklift 103) set in the forklift 103 is set, for example, such that the evaluation becomes higher as the forklift 103 operates more efficiently or more reliably.” (Moriya, [0092]).
Regarding Claim 2:
The simulation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit is configured to display, in the three-dimensional space and superimposed on the object, a three-dimensional model of the robot and a motion path for each operation program of the robot.
Takeda discloses “The motion path can exemplify, for example, as path of a tool tip point.” (Takeda, [0049]).
Takeda additionally discloses “The simulation apparatus of the present invention is a simulation apparatus in which three-dimensional models of a robot and a work tool attached to the robot are located in the same space and simulation of the robot is carried out… The simulation apparatus comprises a position acquisition part that acquires the position in each drive axis of the robot at a set point set for each minute section of a motion path of the robot when an operation program of the robot is executed.” (Takeda, [0012]).
Regarding Claim 6:
The simulation apparatus according to any one of claims 1, wherein
the degree-of-effect calculation unit is configured to calculate a radius of a sphere as the degree of effect, and
Takeda discloses “The operator can arrange other devices and the fence in a manner not to contact the estimated swept space 53. For example, the operator can determine a position for the fence around the robot 1 in a manner not to contact the swept space 53. The swept space 53 calculated by the simulation apparatus 40 includes the area in which the robot 1 moves by inertia after the emergency stop is performed. As such, the operator can arrange the fence at an appropriate position in a manner such that the working area surrounded by the fence is not too large or too small. In other words, a safe area secured around the robot system can be appropriately sized.” (Takeda, [0076]).
the display control unit is configured to display, in the three-dimensional space, the sphere that has the radius as the object.
Takeda discloses “Referring to FIG. 7, a swept space 53 calculated based on the operation of the robot 1 is displayed on the display part 37.” (Takeda, [0074]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4:
The simulation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the degree-of-effect calculation unit is configured to divide the three-dimensional space into a plurality of lattice-shaped regions and, in a case in which the emergency stop of the robot occurs and a position of an operating part of the robot is in the same region as a position of the operating part of the robot in a previous emergency stop, adds up the number of stops that occur in the same region.
Although the prior art discloses the ability to detect the state of a robot in an emergency stop situation, it does not disclose the ability to “divide the three-dimensional space into a plurality of lattice-shaped regions”.
Regarding Claim 5:
The simulation apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the degree-of-effect calculation unit is configured to calculate the number of stops and, based on at least one of a load on the axis or a speed of the axis, the degree of effect.
Although the prior art discloses the ability to detect the number of stops per unit time of a robot in an emergency stop situation, it does not disclose the ability to “calculate the number of stops… based on at least one of a load on the axis or a speed of the axis”.
The prior art of record does not disclose the combinations of limitations found in Claim 4 – 5. The combination of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the applicant’s claimed invention of Claim 4 – 5. A hypothetical prior art rejection would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
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 JAMES B CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/J.B.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights