DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This action is in response to the filing of the Amendments on 02/02/2026. Claim 16 is new.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2025 and 01/29/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 11/06/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Due to the submission of the IDS, the arguments with respect to all claims 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. The submission of reference JP2017-030081 which was also published in the US, see Pub US20170028565, is used for the rejection; therefore this action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsudaira (US 20170028565).
Claim 1, Matsudaira discloses a robot controller configured to control a robot, the robot controller comprising: a processor configured to: detect an external force acting on the robot [see Summary where Matsudaira discloses an industrial robot system and a control method thereof capable of ensuring safety of a person; robot, a force detection unit detecting an external force applied to the robot, a force estimation unit estimating, as a force estimation value, an external force applied to the force detection unit from information about an operation of the robot]; and
switch, based on a signal indicating a state of a surrounding environment of the robot, stop control for stopping the robot in response to the external force equal to or greater than a predetermined value being detected [see p0014 – p0017 - a deviation calculation unit calculating a deviation between the force estimation value and a force detection value applied to the robot (switch based on signal) obtained from information of the force detection unit, a comparison unit comparing the deviation and a first threshold value, and a command output unit, wherein when the comparison unit determines that the deviation is larger than the first threshold value, the command output unit outputs an operation command, a stop command, a deceleration command, or a deceleration stop command to the robot…].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsudaira (US 20170028565).
Claim 16, Matsudaira discloses a robot controller configured to control a robot, the robot controller comprising: a processor; and an input/output interface through which a plurality of types of signals each indicating a state of the robot or a state of a surrounding environment of the robot are input [see p0041 – p0044, Figs 1 - 3A, teaching the CPUs 51 and 52 register the information on the operation of the robot, such has forces, operation of acceleration, angles and commands];
wherein the processor is configured to: select stop control for stopping the robot in response to an external force equal to or greater than a predetermined value being detected, [see p0014 – p0017 - a deviation calculation unit calculating a deviation between the force estimation value and a force detection value applied to the robot (switch based on signal) obtained from information of the force detection unit, a comparison unit comparing the deviation and a first threshold value, and a command output unit, wherein when the comparison unit determines that the deviation is larger than the first threshold value, the command output unit outputs an operation command, a stop command, a deceleration command, or a deceleration stop command to the robot;
and switch the stop control for stopping the robot in response to the external force equal to or greater than the predetermined value being detected, to the selected stop control
[Matsudaira, see p0065, teaches when the robot 10 and a person 9 or the peripheral device collide with each other, and the first deviation ΔF1 or the second deviation ΔF2 is larger than the first threshold value Fa, the robot 10 is caused to stop and/or decelerated].
Matsudaira does not specifically teach that the robot is stopped from among stop controls which are based on the plurality of types of signals.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any number of signals (plurality of signals) supported by the controller, since a mere duplication of essential signals, and naming them for the controller involves only routine skill in the art, thus also increasing the safety by ensuring regardless of the command signals, the robot will avoid any accident with a person when a signal deviation is registered.
Claim 2, Matsudaira discloses the robot controller according to claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate a position of the robot, based on an output from a position detection sensor provided on the robot [see Fig 3B, p0069 – p0072 - , in step S21, a current position Pc of the robot 10 is calculated by using the value detected by the angle detection device 15 of each axis of the robot 10. Then, the third comparison unit 33 refers to the program 24 of the robot 10 and determines whether the current position Pc of the robot 10 is outside of the operation region limited by the program 24],
output, as a signal indicating the state of the robot, a first signal indicating whether the calculated position of the robot is within a first set region being preset, and switch the stop control based on the first signal [see Fig 3B, p0044, p0069, teaching the operation region by the robot may be limited by the program 24 so as to allow the robot 10 to operate only in a certain range. In such case, in step S21, a current position Pc of the robot 10 is calculated by using the value detected by the angle detection device 15 of each axis of the robot 10; also teaching that the first signal is includes a first comparison unit 31 for comparing the first deviation ΔF1 and the first threshold value Fa and comparing the first deviation ΔF1 and the second deviation ΔF2 and a first command output unit 41 outputting a stop command, a deceleration command, or a deceleration stop command to the robot 10 when the first comparison unit 31 determines that the first deviation ΔF1 is larger than the first threshold value Fa or determines that a difference between the first deviation ΔF1 and the second deviation ΔF2 is equal to or larger than a certain level].
Claim 3, Matsudaira discloses the robot controller according to claim 2, wherein, the processor is further configured to, in response to the external force equal to or greater than the predetermined value being detected and the robot being stopped, [see p0014 – p0017 - a deviation calculation unit calculating a deviation between the force estimation value and a force detection value applied to the robot (switch based on signal) obtained from information of the force detection unit, a comparison unit comparing the deviation and a first threshold value, and a command output unit, wherein when the comparison unit determines that the deviation is larger than the first threshold value, the command output unit outputs an operation command, a stop command, a deceleration command, or a deceleration stop command to the robot…],
set a stop time for stopping the robot within the first set region to be shorter than a stop time for stopping the robot outside the first set region [see Fig 6 and p0082 – p0084-when a peak A4 that is smaller than the first threshold value Fa but is larger than the first threshold value Fa′ is detected within this predetermined time, the stop command, the deceleration command, or the deceleration stop command can be output to the robot 10, and the safety of a person 9 can be further ensured. When a person 9 presses the robot 10 by mistake during this predetermined time, the robot 10 can also be immediate stopped].
Claim 7, Matsudaira discloses the robot controller according to claim 16, the processor is further configured to: calculate a speed of a predetermined movable portion of the robot, based on an output from a sensor provided on the robot [see Fig 3A and p0060- p0061- the current speed of the robot 10 may be referred to, and when the speed is larger than the upper limit value, the deceleration command is output, and when the speed is smaller than the lower limit value];
output, as a signal indicating the state of the robot, a third signal indicating whether the calculated speed of the predetermined movable portion is equal to or greater than a predetermined speed value, and switch the stop control based on the third signal [see p0070 - p0071 - the operation speed of each axis of the robot 10 may be calculated by using the detection values of the plurality of angle detection devices 15. In this case, when the operation speed of each axis of the robot 10 is larger than a predetermined speed, the robot 10 is determined to be in an abnormal state; when it is determined the robot is in an abnormal state, the command output unit 43, outputs a stop command].
Claim 9, The robot controller according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a fourth signal from a contact detection sensor including a mechanical switch or a touch sensor, attached to the robot, and switch the stop control based on the fourth signal [see Fig 1, p0038 – a first force sensor 12 and a second force sensor 13 are arranged adjacent to each other in the robot support unit 11. These force sensors 12, 13 are six-axis force sensors of the same type capable of detecting, with a strain gauge, the amount of strain applied to the elastic body and detecting the force in three directions and the torque around the three axes. For example, the first force sensor 12 and the second force sensor 13 respectively detect information about the external force applied to the robot support unit 11 or the robot 10 as a resistance value [Ω], a voltage value [V], or a force [N] according to the external force; the measurements are determined and a stop command may be give].
Claim 10, The robot controller according to claim 9, wherein, the processor is further configured to, in response to the external force equal to or greater than the predetermined value being detected and the robot being stopped, the stop control unit sets seta stop time for stopping the robot when contact is detected by the contact detection sensor to be shorter than a stop time for stopping the robot when contact is not detected by the contact detection sensor [see Fig 6 and p0082 – p0084-when a peak A4 that is smaller than the first threshold value Fa but is larger than the first threshold value Fa′ is detected within this predetermined time, the stop command, the deceleration command, or the deceleration stop command can be output to the robot 10, and the safety of a person 9 can be further ensured. When a person 9 presses the robot 10 by mistake during this predetermined time, the robot 10 can also be immediate stopped, with the second set being the immediate force detection of the person which is completed by the deviation of the external force].
Claim 11, Matsudaira discloses the robot controller according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a fifth signal from a human detection sensor disposed in a workspace [see Matsudaira, person 9, Fig 1, p0052 – p0053 - The direction of the external force is a direction in which a person 9 adds the external force to the robot 10, (the first force sensor 12 and the second force sensor 13 respectively detect information about the external force applied to the robot support unit 11);
and switch the stop control based on the fifth signal [see p0067, p0084 - a collision with respect to a person 9 and the like and a malfunction of force detection units 12, 13 are detected while the redundancy is ensured, and the robot 10 is stopped and/or decelerated].
Matsudaira does not specifically teach that the signal is a fifth signal.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have any number of signals (plurality of signals) supported by the controller, since a mere duplication of essential signals, and naming them for the controller involves only routine skill in the art, thus also increasing the safety by ensuring regardless of the command signals, the robot will avoid any accident with a person when a signal deviation is registered.
Claim 15, The robot controller according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to switch the stop control by changing a type and/or a set value of a control parameter including at least one or more of a stop time, acceleration, a jerk, a motor current, an axis torque, or a reversal distance [see Fig 6 and p0082 – p0084-when a peak A4 that is smaller than the first threshold value Fa but is larger than the first threshold value Fa′ is detected within this predetermined time, the stop command, the deceleration command, or the deceleration stop command can be output to the robot 10, and the safety of a person 9 can be further ensured. When a person 9 presses the robot 10 by mistake during this predetermined time, the robot 10 can also be immediate stopped, with the second set being the immediate force detection of the person which is completed by the deviation of the external force – thus teaching that the stop time is a control parameter].
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsudaira (US 20170028565) in view of Brooks (US 20140067121).
Claim 4, Matsudaira discloses the robot controller according to claim 16, but is silent to wherein the robot is mounted on a movable cart, and the processor is further configured to: calculate a position of the robot being movable together with the cart, based on an output from a position detection sensor for detecting a position of the cart,
output, as a signal indicating the state of the robot, a second signal indicating whether the calculated position of the robot is within a second set region being preset, and switch the stop control based on the second signal.
However, Brooks discloses a system and method of safety in robot operation, in particular, in situations where the robot and a human share the same workspace; wherein the robot is mounted on a movable cart [see Fig 2A, robot 200 is fixed to a rollable base 202];
the robot control device further comprises a robot position calculation unit configured to calculate a position of the robot being movable together with the cart [see Fig 3A and 3B, showing the detection zone and the danger zone for the robot 200 of FIGS. 2A and 2B in a plan view from above the robot 200 and in an elevational view from the side, respectively. As shown in FIG. 3A, an outer boundary 300 (which is circular in the depicted two dimensions) defines the outer limits of the detection zone 302 (i.e., the region in which the sonar system can reliably detect motion). An inner (likewise circular) boundary 304 defines the inner limits of the sonar detection zone 302; points within that boundary 304 are too close to the robot 200 for detection by the robot's sonar system. The kidney-shaped zone 306 defines the limit of the robot's reach with its arms and is, in this embodiment, co-extensive with the danger zone (as set by a computational facility 120];
based on an output from a position detection sensor for detecting a position of the cart, and output, as a signal indicating a state of the robot [see p0014, p0023 - The robot may further include one or more output devices for signaling a direction toward a location at which a robot action is going to take place proximity of a human to the robot, an indication whether the robot has detected a person in the zone, and/or an indication of a robot malfunction; the robot may include sensors 112 for monitoring the state of the robot 100 itself, such as, e.g., accelerometers or gyroscopes to keep track of the location, orientation, and configuration of its appendage(s) 102],
a second signal indicating whether the calculated position of the robot is within a second set region being preset, and the stop control unit switches the stop control according to the second signal [see Figs 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B and below – p0031 – p0035 - detection and danger zones - an outer boundary 300 (which is circular in the depicted two dimensions) defines the outer limits of the detection zone 302 (i.e., the region in which the sonar system can reliably detect motion). An inner (likewise circular) boundary 304 defines the inner limits of the sonar detection zone 302; points within that boundary 304 are too close to the robot 200 for detection by the robot's sonar system. The kidney-shaped zone 306 defines the limit of the robot's reach with its arms and is, in this embodiment, co-extensive with the danger zone; The robot arms 206, moreover, stop when they encounter an unexpected impact, so the duration of any collision is very limited. These two factors make it safe for a human to reach into the robot workspace with her arms when the robot is operating at full speed. On the other hand, when a person's torso or head gets within reach of the robot's arms 206, out of a sense of caution, the robot is slowed down to a very low speed (at or below the lower of the two speed limits)].
PNG
media_image1.png
664
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Matsudaira to include the robot is mounted on a movable cart, the robot control device further comprises a robot position calculation unit configured to calculate a position of the robot being movable together with the cart, based on an output from a position detection sensor for detecting a position of the cart, and output, as a signal indicating a state of the robot, a second signal indicating whether the calculated position of the robot is within a second set region being preset, and the stop control unit switches the stop control according to the second signal, as suggested and taught by Brooks, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing systems and methods for robot safety that are straightforwardly implemented while avoiding unnecessary interruptions and retardations of robot operation.
Claim 5, Matsudaira discloses the robot controller according to claim 4, wherein, the processor is further configured to, in response to the external force equal to or greater than the predetermined value being detected and the robot being stopped, set a stop time for stopping the robot within the second set region to be shorter than a stop time for stopping the robot outside the second set region [see Fig 6 and p0082 – p0084-when a peak A4 that is smaller than the first threshold value Fa but is larger than the first threshold value Fa′ is detected within this predetermined time, the stop command, the deceleration command, or the deceleration stop command can be output to the robot 10, and the safety of a person 9 can be further ensured. When a person 9 presses the robot 10 by mistake during this predetermined time, the robot 10 can also be immediate stopped, with the second set being the immediate force detection of the person which is completed by the deviation of the external force].
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsudaira (US 20170028565) in view of Hannya (US 20200070342).
Claim 6, Matsudaira discloses the robot controller according to claim 2, but is silent to wherein the processor is further configured to reverse the robot by a predetermined reversal distance after the robot is stopped by the stop control.
However, Hannya discloses a human – cooperative robot system where the robot control device may cause the robot to perform a retreating operation in a direction in which the external force is reduced, in a case in which the external force detected by the sensor is equal to or greater than a third threshold, which is smaller than the first threshold, and less than the first threshold [see p0006]. Further teaching, if the external force F is less than the first threshold Th3, a command for causing the robot 2 to stop in a longer stopping time compared to the case of “quick stop” or a command for causing the robot 2 to perform a retreating operation in a direction in which the external force F decreases is generated (step S5) [see p0023 – p0029].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Matsudaira to include wherein the stop control unit reverses the robot by a predetermined reversal distance after the stop control unit stops the robot by the stop control, as suggested and taught by Hannya, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an external safety feature such as a “quick stop” allowing a user or operator the ability to cause external force forcing the robot to reverse or retreat into the stopping mode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12, 13 and 14 are allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of the IDS used in this rejection 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.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE LAROSE whose telephone number is (313)446-4856. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/Renee LaRose/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights