Detailed Action
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 10/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites the limitation “each of the tiles representing at least one of an action, a decision, a condition associated with the robotic arm;” wherein the examiner believes the phrase should be rewritten to include “each of the tiles representing at least one of an action, a decision, and/or a condition associated with the robotic arm” . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one parameter setting associated with the seek is one or more of a limit of contact force, a limit of displacement speed, a constraint in trajectory of movement” wherein the examiner believes the phrase should be rewritten to include “wherein the at least one parameter setting associated with the seek is one or more of a limit of contact force, a limit of displacement speed, and/or a constraint in trajectory of movement” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 11-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han II (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2020/0230817 A1 hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding claim 1 Han discloses:
A programming interface of a robotic arm comprising: a programming table including rows and columns of cells, (Han sheet 8 [0081-0087] wherein the work cell manager includes different program options aligned in rows or columns grouping like processes or operations) wherein the cells in the rows or in the columns represent an execution sequence; (Han [0051] wherein skills in a set of commands are used to program the robot, strung together in a row sequence, see also sheet 16) tiles positionable in the cells, (Han [0013] [0051-0052] [0077] wherein the tasks are positionable by the user in templates or by adding skills to the template or changing orders around) each of the tiles representing at least one of an action, (Han [0051] wherein the tiles or icons represent operations) a decision, (Han [0068] [0101] wherein the tiles or icons include recommended cells to perform a task, or coupled cells to complete the task) a condition associated with the robotic arm; (Han [0149] [0077] wherein the cell items can include information about the state of the system, including information like the types of tools available for the robotic effector) wherein, during operation of the robotic arm, a controller operates the robotic arm based on the execution sequence and on the tiles in the programming table. (Han [0128] wherein the tasks after verification are executed by the robot).
Regarding claim 2 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 1, wherein the cells in the rows represent the execution sequence. (Han [0051] wherein skills in a set of commands are used to program the robot, strung together in a row sequence, see also sheet 16).
Regarding claim 3 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 2, wherein the cells in a common one of the columns represent a condition sequence. (Han fig. sheet 16 [0120] wherein the system includes columns of task templates to complete an operation i.e. task sequence 1 and 2 stacked in the column are of common condition operations).
Regarding claim 4 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 3, wherein tiles in the cells in the common one of the columns forming the condition sequence are each adjacent to another tile in a respective one of the rows, the other one of the tiles indicating an action and/or a decision of the condition sequence. (Han fig. sheet 16 [0120-0122] wherein stacked i.e. columns of task templates are used to create an operation sequence, wherein the rows of tiles include the steps in the sequence).
Regarding claim 5 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the tiles is a waypoint tile identifying at least one waypoint position and/or orientation to which the controller directs the robotic arm. (Han [0109-0110] wherein the robot can register cells with approach points and operation points as waypoints).
Regarding claim 6 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 5, wherein the waypoint tile further includes at least one parameter setting associated with a movement of the robotic arm to the waypoint position and/or orientation. (Han [0109-0110] wherein the robot can register cells with approach points and operation points as waypoints).
Regarding claim 11 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the tiles is associated with an actuation of an end effector of the robotic arm. (Han [0044-0047] wherein the sequence tiles operate a robot end effector).
Regarding claim 12 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 11, wherein the end effector is a gripper. (Han [0062] [0109] wherein the end effector can include a robot gripper).
Regarding claim 13 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 12, wherein the at least one tile associated with the actuation is to cause an opening of the gripper. (Han [0062] wherein the tile in a sequence includes opening and closing the gripper).
Regarding claim 14 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 12, wherein the at least one tile associated with the actuation is to cause a closing of the gripper. (Han [0062] wherein the tile in a sequence includes opening and closing the gripper).
Regarding claim 15 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 14, wherein the at least one tile associated with the actuation further includes at least one parameter setting associated with the actuation of the gripper. (Han [0062] wherein the tiles for operating the gripper can include user skill names i.e. actuation parameters set by a user).
Regarding claim 19 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Han further discloses:
The programming interface according to claim 1,wherein at least one of the tiles is associated with an operation of a vision system of the robotic arm. (Han [0048] wherein vision or proximity sensors are used in the system to identify and operate the system).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ho (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2022/0096183 A1 hereinafter “Ho”).
Regarding claim 21 Ho discloses:
A system for teaching a robotic arm comprising: a user interface at a working end of a robotic arm; (Ho [0092] wherein the robotic arms include interfaces to control the arms)
a processing unit; (Ho [0114] wherein the system includes various processors or processing units to control the robot system) and a non-transitory computer-readable memory communicatively coupled to the processing unit and comprising computer-readable program instructions executable by the processing unit for: (Ho [0116] wherein the system uses non-transitory storage and readable medium) recording a position of the working end of the robotic arm in response to signaling from the user interface in a first mode; (Ho [0100] wherein the robot allows the positional movement of the arm in certain admittance control modes without changing an orientation of the end effector) recording an orientation of the working end of the robotic arm in response to signaling from the user interface in a second mode; (Ho [0093] [0100] wherein the system works in a manner to rotate or spin at a wrist position in an admittance control mode i.e. orientation mode) and toggling between at least the first mode and the second mode in response to signaling from the user interface. (Ho [0099-0101] wherein the system can lock certain movements of the robotic system such as an orientation or position movement when enabled or prevent certain movements when disabled i.e. switching between different control modes).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Kassow et al (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2013/0255426 A1 hereinafter “Kassow”).
Regarding claim 7 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 but Han does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… wherein the at least one waypoint position and/or orientation of the waypoint tile is set from a signal received from a wrist of the robotic arm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Kassow discloses:
“wherein the at least one waypoint position and/or orientation of the waypoint tile is set from a signal received from a wrist of the robotic arm.” (Kassow fig. 1(a) and fig. 1(b) [0057] [0077-0080] wherein the system moves the robot wrist along a path to the final destination).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the position or orientation waypoint for the wrist of a robot of Kassow with the system of Han with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to teach the robot the desired operation the performance at each location, allowing the user to guide and specify the robot, specifically the wrist, to avoid issues such as collisions (Kassow [0004-0006] [0100-0101]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Kaur et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2023/0104775 A1 hereinafter “Kaur”).
Regarding claim 8 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Han does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… wherein at least one of the tiles is a script tile, according to which the controller operates the robotic arm as a function of the script.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Kaur discloses:
“wherein at least one of the tiles is a script tile, according to which the controller operates the robotic arm as a function of the script.” (Kaur [0111] wherein the instructions for the system include script such as Python retrieved for programming).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the script coding of Kaur with the system of Han with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide known computer coding methods to implement robotic controls, applications, and processors (Kaur [0111]).
Regarding claim 9 Han in view of Kaur discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 but Han does not appear to further disclose:
… wherein the script is Python®.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Kaur discloses:
“wherein the script is Python®.” (Kaur [0111] wherein the instructions for the system include script such as Python retrieved for programming).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the script coding of Kaur with the system of Han with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide known computer coding methods to implement robotic controls, applications, and processors (Kaur [0111]).
Regarding claim 10 Han in view of Kaur discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 but Han does not appear to disclose:
… wherein the script is imported into a field of the programming interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Kaur discloses:
“wherein the script is imported into a field of the programming interface.” (Kaur [0111-0112] wherein the instructions for the system include script such as Python retrieved for programming).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the script coding of Kaur with the system of Han with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide known computer coding methods to implement robotic controls, applications, and processors (Kaur [0111]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Chen et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2013/0345869 A1 hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 16 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 but Han does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… wherein the at least one parameter setting associated with the actuation of the gripper is a closing force or a closing speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Chen discloses:
“wherein the at least one parameter setting associated with the actuation of the gripper is a closing force or a closing speed.” (Chen [0065] wherein the system determines forces of the gripper to pick up an object).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parameter such as a grip speed or force of Chen with the system of Han with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a robotic system that is capable of learning intuitive actions such as gripping an object only as much as necessary to avoid the object slipping, and then storing the information for future jobs (Chen [0065] [0004] [0008]).
Regarding claim 17 Han discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 but Han does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… wherein the at least one tile associated with the actuation is to cause the end effector to seek the presence of an object by contact.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic control Chen discloses:
“wherein the at least one tile associated with the actuation is to cause the end effector to seek the presence of an object by contact.” (Chen [0065] wherein the robot determines contact with an object when directed by a user to find the object to pick up).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parameter such as a grip speed or force of Chen with the system of Han with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a robotic system that is capable of learning intuitive actions such as gripping an object only as much as necessary to avoid the object slipping, and then storing the information for future jobs (Chen [0065] [0004] [0008]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han and Chen as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kaur.
Regarding claim 18 Han in view of Chen disclose all of the limitations of claim 17, but Han does not appear to disclose:
… wherein the at least one tile associated with the actuation further includes at least one parameter setting associated with the seek of the object, wherein the at least one parameter setting associated with the seek is one or more of a limit of contact force, a limit of displacement speed, a constraint in trajectory of movement.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Kaur discloses:
“wherein the at least one tile associated with the actuation further includes at least one parameter setting associated with the seek of the object, (Kaur [0057] wherein the parameters are used to correct and identify trajectories to learn the best way to interact with an object) wherein the at least one parameter setting associated with the seek is one or more of a limit of contact force, a limit of displacement speed, (Kaur [0057] wherein the trajectory parameters like a position, velocity, and acceleration are used to inform the robot how to interact with the object and train the robot) a constraint in trajectory of movement.” (Kaur [0057] wherein the trajectory is constrained to train the robot to successfully operate similar to the human operations).
Examiner notes that due to the “at least one parameter setting” language, only one of the limited contact force, the displacement speed, and the constraint trajectory is needed to fully teach the claim.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the parameters of Kaur with the system of Han with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to train a robot with information that is useful to help in robot operations such as a pick and place operation, and reinforce the training to improve successful operation (Kaur [0057] [0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,513,032 B2 discloses a robotic arm controller based on control signals and moving target notes on a user interface
US 2013/0231778 A1 discloses a robot operation system based on position and policies, using specified portions to allow users to easily operate a robot
US 2016/0332297 A1 discloses a robot and interface for a robot to operate and change positions for the robot in the environment
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656