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 .
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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed February 9th, 2026, have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 7-9 by claiming the mounted vision sensor and its function for imaging the target while located in a predetermined position to the robot.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2 and 5-9 (and 3-4 due to dependency) regarding the indefinite terms ”common” and “substantially common”, have only been partially overcome as claims 7 and 9 continue to include indefinite terms. Furthermore, new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been made below in light of amended limitations lacking antecedent basis.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, due to the amended claims continuing to include broad limitations regarding the unclear location(s) of the image processing device(s) and lacking functionality or configurations of the system components, new rejections have been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 below. Examiner further notes that simply claiming the location of a generic “image processing device” as being externally connected does not constitute a unique or novel improvement on existing robotic control devices, since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 7-9 (and 2-6 due to dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “common” and “substantially” in claims 7 and 9 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “common” and “substantially” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner understands the Applicant intends to portray the vision programs to be the same within the two devices, and has amended a majority of the claim language previously including these indefinite terms accordingly. Examiner urges to revise all instances of these indefinite terms, along with removing “substantially” entirely.
Claims 1 and 7-9 recite the limitation "external image processing devices". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes each claim reciting this limitation is only claiming “at least one image processing device”, and the externality of this device is not clarified or well-defined. The only prior mention of an external image processing device is in the limitation of “at least one image processing device […] or is externally connected”. Examiner notes the use of “or” in this limitation along with only requiring a single image processing device does not create sufficient basis for further claiming multiple externally connected image processing devices.
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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tanako et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2019-89180A), herein “Tanako”, in view of Daiki (JP Patent Pub. No. 2019-192145A).
Regarding Claim 1, Tanako discloses a robot control device (See 0045, “[…] a robot system 2 according to the present embodiment includes a control device 30 […]”) comprising:
at least one image processing device that images a target by a vision sensor mounted on a robot or fixed and installed at a predetermined position (See 0045-0046, “[…] a first stereo camera 20a as an imaging unit […] includes an image processing unit 42 (see FIG. 8) as an image receiving unit that receives an image captured by the first stereo camera 20a and the second stereo camera […]”),
wherein the at least one image processing device is built into the robot control device or is externally connected to the robot control device (See 0007, “[…] an imaging unit connected to the shoulder via a support […]”),
a vision execution command in a vision program in the image processing device and a vision execution command in a robot program in the robot control device are the same between a built-in image processing device built into the robot control device and an external image processing device externally connected to the robot control device (See 0089, “[…] the robot control unit 34 generates a command value to move the arm […] various general techniques can be used for the trajectory generation process, the target angle determination process, the command value generation process, and the like performed by the robot control unit […]” See 0115, “[…] method of controlling a robot or the like, a program for controlling a robot or the like, and a storage medium storing the program.”).
But does not explicitly disclose the at least one image processing device includes the external image processing devices externally connected to the robot control device.
Daiki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the at least one image processing device includes the external image processing devices externally connected to the robot control device (See 0081-0085, “Some processes in the information processing apparatus 10 described above may be performed by another apparatus […] all or part of the functions of the control unit 11 may be provided in the server device, and processing corresponding to the functions may be performed on the server device side. The input unit 13 and the output unit 14 may be a remote-control device that is separate from the information processing device […] The image processing apparatus according to (1), further including an alignment processing unit that performs an alignment process on a plurality of viewpoint images acquired […] supplies the feature quantity of the unknown object to an external device and acquires information about the unknown object from the external device.” Examiner notes the external device is clearly capable of acquiring information, including images of the target object, while communicating with the robot control unit).
In view of Daiki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot control device receiving and processing image data to generate vision-based commands for a robot as disclosed by Tanako, the image processing to further include connection to an external device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, and merely claiming the location of an image processing device, when the function of that device is disclosed, does not constitute patentable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 2, Tanako further discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, wherein the vision program is common between the built-in image processing device and the external image processing device (See 0089 and 0115 as referenced above).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanako further discloses the robot control device according to claim 2, wherein the robot control device transmits an image acquired by the built-in image processing device to the external image processing device, and the external image processing device processes the image (See 0083, “[…] image reception unit that processes captured images of two sets of the first stereo camera 20a and the second stereo camera […]” See 0111, “[…] the wiring necessary for transmitting and receiving stereo images can be simplified […]”).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanako discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the vision program in the external image processing device is executed on a cloud.
Daiki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the vision program in the external image processing device is executed on a cloud (See 0081, “[…] processes in the information processing apparatus 10 described above may be performed by another apparatus, for example, a server apparatus on the cloud […] all or part of the functions of the control unit 11 may be provided in the server device, and processing corresponding to the functions may be performed on the server device side.”).
In view of Daiki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot control device receiving and processing image data to generate vision-based commands for a robot as disclosed by Tanako, the image processing execution to be on a cloud, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is commonly understood in the art that image processing on a cloud offers scalability, cost-efficiency, and improved performance by reducing operational loads on physical resources.
Regarding Claim 5, Tanako further discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, wherein a setting screen for setting the vision program is the same between the built-in image processing device and the external image processing device (See 0062, “A display device 14 visible from the back side of the robot 4 is disposed on the back side of the body 10. The display device 14 is, for example, a liquid crystal monitor, and can display the current state of the robot 4 and the like.” See also 0106, “[…] used when the user creates an operation command to the robot […] displays the stereo image received from the control device […]”).
Regarding Claim 6, Tanako further discloses the robot control device according to claim 1, wherein a history of execution of the vision program is the same between the built-in image processing device and the external image processing device (See 0095, “[…] functions of the robot control unit 34, the image processing unit 42, the input unit 38, and the display unit 40 are performed by the arithmetic unit 62 executing a predetermined program loaded from the auxiliary storage unit 66 or the like to the main storage unit […]” Examiner notes the auxiliary storage unit contains a history of vision program executions).
Regarding Claim 7, Tanako further discloses a program generation device for generating a program related to a robot, the program generation device uses at least one image processing device that images a target by a vision sensor mounted on a robot or fixed and installed at a predetermined position, the program generation device (See 0007, 0045-0046 and 0089 as referenced above) comprising:
a processor;
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive selection of a built-in image processing device built into a robot control device or an external image processing device provided externally to the robot control device (See 0007 and 0045-0046 as referenced above); and
in a case in which at least one of the built-in image processing device or the external image processing device is selected, make a vision execution command in the program common therebetween (See 0083, 0089 and 0115 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one image processing device includes the external image processing devices externally connected to the robot control device.
Daiki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the at least one image processing device includes the external image processing devices externally connected to the robot control device (See 0081-0085 as referenced above).
In view of Daiki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot control device receiving and processing image data to generate vision-based commands for a robot as disclosed by Tanako, the image processing to further include connection to an external device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, and merely claiming the location of an image processing device, when the function of that device is disclosed, does not constitute patentable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 8, Tanako further discloses a robot control device connectable to at least one image processing device, the robot control device uses at least one image processing device that images a target by a vision sensor mounted on a robot or fixed and installed at a predetermined position (See 0045-0046 as referenced above), robot control device comprising:
a first connection terminal connectable to the at least one image processing device (See 0019, “[…] in the two or more sets of stereo cameras, two cameras constituting the stereo camera are respectively connected to the two image reception units.”); and
a second connection terminal, which is different from the first connection terminal, connectable to the at least one image processing device (See 0081, “[…] a line connecting the two cameras constituting the first stereo camera 20a and a line connecting the two cameras constituting the second stereo camera […] line connecting the two cameras constituting the first stereo camera 20a and the line connecting the two cameras constituting the second stereo camera 20b may be parallel or inclined.”),
wherein a vision execution command in a vision program in the at least one image processing device and a vision execution command in a robot program are the same in a case where the image processing device is connected to at least one of the first connection terminal or the second connection terminal (See 0089 and 0115 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose the at least one image processing device includes the external image processing devices externally connected to the robot control device.
Daiki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the at least one image processing device includes the external image processing devices externally connected to the robot control device (See 0081-0085 as referenced above).
In view of Daiki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot control device receiving and processing image data to generate vision-based commands for a robot as disclosed by Tanako, the image processing to further include connection to an external device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, and merely claiming the location of an image processing device, when the function of that device is disclosed, does not constitute patentable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 9, Tanako further discloses a robot control device connectable to at least one image processing device, the robot control device uses at least one image processing device that images a target by a vision sensor mounted on a robot or fixed and installed at a predetermined position (See 0045-0046 as referenced above), the robot control device comprising:
a connection terminal connectable to the at least one image processing device (See 0019 and 0081 as referenced above),
wherein a vision execution command in a vision program in the at least one image processing device and a vision execution command in a robot program are substantially the same regardless of whether or not the at least one image processing device is connected to the connection terminal (See 0089 and 0115 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose the at least one image processing device includes the external image processing devices externally connected to the robot control device.
Daiki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the at least one image processing device includes the external image processing devices externally connected to the robot control device (See 0081-0085 as referenced above).
In view of Daiki’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the robot control device receiving and processing image data to generate vision-based commands for a robot as disclosed by Tanako, the image processing to further include connection to an external device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, and merely claiming the location of an image processing device, when the function of that device is disclosed, does not constitute patentable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights