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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an input unit
“an acquisition unit”
“a generation unit”
“a control unit”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation of: “input unit” in claims 1, 7, and 11; “acquisition unit” in claims 1, 5, 7, and 11; “generation unit” in claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14; and “control unit” in claims 1, 4-7, and 11 are interpreted to have invoked interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f). As such the specification must be written in such a way that disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. In this particular case, the specification paragraph [0249] only provide a disclosure of the desired results of each of the units without providing disclosure of the necessary structure, material or acts from that description as being adequate to perform the claimed function.
Claims 1-14 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. Claim limitations “input unit” in claims 1, 7, and 11; “acquisition unit” in claims 1, 5, 7, and 11; “generation unit” in claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14; and “control unit” in claims 1, 4-7, and 11 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this particular case, the specification paragraph [0249] only provide a disclosure of the desired results of each of the units without providing disclosure of the necessary structure, material or acts from that description as being adequate to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are all directed to an “offline teaching device” (i.e., a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
The independent claim recite the following limitations:
Per Claim 1:
“An offline teaching device comprising: an input unit that receives an operator operation; an acquisition unit that acquires position information of a welding line of a workpiece produced by welding and a scanning range of a sensor, the sensor scanning an appearance shape of a weld bead formed on the workpiece; a generation unit that generates a three-dimensional region scanned by the sensor based on the acquired position information of the welding line and the scanning range; and a control unit that generates and outputs an auxiliary screen in which the welding line and the three-dimensional region are disposed in a virtual space, and creates and outputs a teaching program for causing a robot that drives the sensor to scan the three-dimensional region shown in the auxiliary screen based on the operator operation input to the input unit.”
Per Claim 7:
“An offline teaching device comprising: an input unit that acquires an operator operation; an acquisition unit that acquires position information of a welding line of a workpiece produced by welding and a scanning range of a sensor, the sensor scanning an appearance shape of a weld bead formed on the workpiece; a generation unit that generates a three-dimensional region scanned by the sensor, based on the acquired position information of the welding line and the scanning range; and a control unit that generates and outputs an auxiliary screen in which the welding line and the three-dimensional region are disposed in a virtual space and creates and outputs a teaching program for causing a robot that drives the sensor to scan a three-dimensional region shown in the auxiliary screen, based on the operator operation, wherein the generation unit divides the three-dimensional region based on the operator operation input to the input unit, and the control unit generates and outputs a new auxiliary screen in which the welding line and a plurality of three-dimensional regions including the divided three-dimensional region are disposed in the virtual space, and creates and outputs a teaching program for scanning the plurality of three-dimensional regions shown in the new auxiliary screen, based on the operator operation.”
Per Claim 11:
“An offline teaching device comprising: an input unit that acquires an operator operation; an acquisition unit that acquires position information of a plurality of welding lines of a workpiece produced by welding and a scanning range of a sensor, the sensor scanning an appearance shape of a weld bead formed on the workpiece; a generation unit that generates a plurality of three-dimensional regions scanned by the sensor, based on the acquired position information of the plurality of welding lines and the scanning range; and a control unit that generates and outputs an auxiliary screen in which the plurality of welding lines and the plurality of three-dimensional regions are disposed in a virtual space and creates and outputs a teaching program for causing a robot that drives the sensor to scan a three- dimensional region shown in the auxiliary screen, based on the operator operation, wherein the generation unit combines two of the three-dimensional regions selected by the operator operation, and the control unit generates and outputs a new auxiliary screen in which the plurality of welding lines and at least one three-dimensional region including the combined three-dimensional regions are disposed in the virtual space, and creates and outputs a teaching program for scanning the at least one three-dimensional region shown in the new auxiliary screen, based on the operator operation.”
The non-highlighted sections of the above limitations, as drafted, define a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of an “input unit”, “acquisition unit”, “generation unit”, and “control unit”, nothing in the above limitations precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the recited language, the limitations above encompass observing a welding line of a workpiece as well as the scanning range of a sensor, determining a region to be scanned by a sensor, outputting a virtual representation of said welding line within the scanning region, and outputting controls for a robot with a sensor.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Hence, the limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 are drawn to an abstract ides of “determining a scanning region for a robot” which falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas in terms of concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the Applicant’s claimed elements of an “input unit”, “acquisition unit”, “generation unit”, and “control unit” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed abstract idea of “identifying cognitive deterioration in a subject” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Furthermore, the claimed “input unit”, “acquisition unit”, “generation unit”, and “control unit” (all of which are described in paragraph [0249] and fig. 2 of the submitted specification) are reasonably interpreted as generic hardware and provide no details of anything beyond its use as ubiquitous standard equipment. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Claims 2-6 are dependent from claim 1, claims 8-10 are dependent from claim 7, and claims 12-14 are dependent from claim 11. These dependent claims include all the limitations of the independent claim and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For Example:
The limitations of claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-14 denote additional values output by the offline teaching device. As such, these claims merely recite the types of data generated by the system and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on these claims.
The limitations of claim 5, denotes additional values input into offline teaching device. As such, this claim merely recite the types of data gathered for the system and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations fail to provide any teaching that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than a judicial exception. For this reason, the analysis performed on the independent claims is also applicable on this claim.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 11 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-14 merely recite abstract ideas without significantly more and are not drawn to eligible subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Nagatsuka (Document ID US 20060212170 A1; 2006-09-21).
Regarding claim 1, Nagatsuka teaches:
An offline teaching device comprising: an input unit that receives an operator operation (Para. [0031]-[0033], shows the system receives input via operator operation of the device); an acquisition unit that acquires position information of a welding line of a workpiece produced by welding and a scanning range of a sensor (Para. [0030], shows that the system receives CAD and IGES data of a workpiece, i.e. position information, and further shows that the system receives the scannable area of a scanner, i.e. the scanning range of a sensor), the sensor scanning an appearance shape of a weld bead formed on the workpiece (Para. [0007] and [0045]-[0046], show that the welding lines made by the TCP may be scanned during or after the constant-speed movement of the TCP); a generation unit that generates a three-dimensional region scanned by the sensor based on the acquired position information of the welding line and the scanning range (Para. [0032] and fig. 4a-4c, denote the 3D region to be scanned by the scanner that is determined based on the locations of the welding lines and the scannable area of the sensor); and a control unit that generates and outputs an auxiliary screen in which the welding line and the three-dimensional region are disposed in a virtual space (Fig. 4c, shows the three dimensional regions disposed on the three dimensional shape data of the workpiece), and creates and outputs a teaching program for causing a robot that drives the sensor to scan the three-dimensional region shown in the auxiliary screen based on the operator operation input to the input unit (Para. [0007] and [0035] shows that the system creates a motion program for the robot to follow when scanning the previously define regions).
Regarding claim 2, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional region includes each of two auxiliary scanning regions of the sensor (Para. [0037]-[0038] and fig. 8, show that the region to be scanned may be broken up into a number of smaller regions).
Regarding claim 3, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates the three-dimensional region including one end and the other end of the welding line (Fig. 8, shows that each of the regions, i.e. areas A1-A4, contain the entire welding line, i.e. both ends of each welding line).
Regarding claim 4, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit further generates an operation trajectory of the sensor for each of the three-dimensional regions based on a start position and an end position of the welding line (Para. [0038], shows that a trajectory t for the robot is determined based off of the location of the welding lines in each of the welding areas), and the control unit generates and outputs an auxiliary screen in which the welding line, the three-dimensional region, and the operation trajectory of the sensor are disposed in the virtual space (Fig. 8, shows that trajectory T may be displayed).
Regarding claim 5, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit further acquires position information of a production facility that executes the welding, and the control unit generates and outputs an auxiliary screen in which the welding line, the three-dimensional region, and the production facility are disposed in the virtual space (Para. [0034] and fig. 5, show that elements of the production facility are disposed in the 3d environment such as the work tool, workpiece, and other external equipment).
Regarding claim 6, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit calculates and outputs a time required for a scanning operation of an appearance shape of the workpiece by the sensor based on the acquired three-dimensional region (Para. [0033] and [0038]-[0046], show that a cycle time for the robot’s movement is calculated based off of the location of the welding lines in each of the welding areas).
Regarding claim 7, Nagatsuka teaches:
An offline teaching device comprising: an input unit that acquires an operator operation (Para. [0031]-[0033], shows the system receives input via operator operation of the device); an acquisition unit that acquires position information of a welding line of a workpiece produced by welding and a scanning range of a sensor (Para. [0030], shows that the system receives CAD and IGES data of a workpiece, i.e. position information, and further shows that the system receives the scannable area of a scanner, i.e. the scanning range of a sensor), the sensor scanning an appearance shape of a weld bead formed on the workpiece (Para. [0007] and [0045]-[0046], show that the welding lines made by the TCP may be scanned during or after the constant-speed movement of the TCP); a generation unit that generates a three-dimensional region scanned by the sensor, based on the acquired position information of the welding line and the scanning range (Para. [0032] and fig. 4a-4c, denote the 3D region to be scanned by the scanner that is determined based on the locations of the welding lines and the scannable area of the sensor); and a control unit that generates and outputs an auxiliary screen in which the welding line and the three-dimensional region are disposed in a virtual space (Fig. 4c, shows the three dimensional regions disposed on the three dimensional shape data of the workpiece) and creates and outputs a teaching program for causing a robot that drives the sensor to scan a three-dimensional region shown in the auxiliary screen, based on the operator operation (Para. [0007] and [0035] shows that the system creates a motion program for the robot to follow when scanning the previously define regions), wherein the generation unit divides the three-dimensional region based on the operator operation input to the input unit, and the control unit generates and outputs a new auxiliary screen in which the welding line and a plurality of three-dimensional regions including the divided three-dimensional region are disposed in the virtual space (Figs. 4a-4c and para. [0032], show that the welding lines disposed in the virtual space, i.e. fig. 4b, are divided into a plurality of 3d regions within the virtual space, i.e. areas A1-A4 in fig. 4c), and creates and outputs a teaching program for scanning the plurality of three-dimensional regions shown in the new auxiliary screen, based on the operator operation (Para. [0007] and [0035] shows that the system creates a motion program for the robot to follow when scanning the previously define regions).
Regarding claim 8, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 7, wherein the three-dimensional region includes each of two auxiliary scanning regions of the sensor (Para. [0032] and fig. 4c, show that the plurality of scannable areas are disposed within the 3D space).
Regarding claim 9,
The offline teaching device according to claim 7, wherein the generation unit generates the three-dimensional region including one end and the other end of the welding line (fig. 4b-4c, show that the entire welding line, i.e. including each end, is contained within one of the scanning areas), and the generation unit generates a first three-dimensional region including a division point designated by the operator operation and the one end, and a second three-dimensional region including the division point and the other end (Para. [0032], shows that each of the scannable areas may be manually denoted by the operator).
Regarding claim 10, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 7, wherein when M, where M is an integer of 2 or more, division points are designated by the operator operation, the generation unit generates three-dimensional regions of M+1 obtained by dividing the three-dimensional region at the M division points,a first three-dimensional region is generated including one end of the welding line and a first division point, a k-th, wherein k is an integer of 2 or more, three-dimensional region is generated including a (k-1)-th division point and a k-th division point, and a (M+1)-th three-dimensional region is generated including an M-th division point and the other end of the welding line (Para. [0032], shows that the scannable areas may be determined manually by the operator; Fig. 4c, shows a number of scannable areas greater than 2, i.e. a k value greater than 2; shows that the regions fully enclose the welding lines, i.e. utilize one end of each welding line; and show that the three dimension regions are made with M division points, i.e. the borders of each of the 4 scannable areas).
Regarding claim 11, Nagatsuka teaches:
An offline teaching device comprising: an input unit that acquires an operator operation (Para. [0031]-[0033], shows the system receives input via operator operation of the device); an acquisition unit that acquires position information of a plurality of welding lines of a workpiece produced by welding and a scanning range of a sensor (Para. [0030], shows that the system receives CAD and IGES data of a workpiece, i.e. position information, and further shows that the system receives the scannable area of a scanner, i.e. the scanning range of a sensor), the sensor scanning an appearance shape of a weld bead formed on the workpiece (Para. [0007] and [0045]-[0046], show that the welding lines made by the TCP may be scanned during or after the constant-speed movement of the TCP); a generation unit that generates a plurality of three-dimensional regions scanned by the sensor, based on the acquired position information of the plurality of welding lines and the scanning range (Para. [0032] and fig. 4a-4c, denote the 3D region to be scanned by the scanner that is determined based on the locations of the welding lines and the scannable area of the sensor); and a control unit that generates and outputs an auxiliary screen in which the plurality of welding lines and the plurality of three-dimensional regions are disposed in a virtual space (Fig. 4c, shows the three dimensional regions disposed on the three dimensional shape data of the workpiece) and creates and outputs a teaching program for causing a robot that drives the sensor to scan a three-dimensional region shown in the auxiliary screen (Para. [0007] and [0035] shows that the system creates a motion program for the robot to follow when scanning the previously define regions), based on the operator operation, wherein the generation unit combines two of the three-dimensional regions selected by the operator operation, and the control unit generates and outputs a new auxiliary screen in which the plurality of welding lines and at least one three-dimensional region including the combined three-dimensional regions are disposed in the virtual space (Figs. 4a-4c and para. [0032], show that the welding lines disposed on 3d virtual space, i.e. fig. 4b, all of the welding line disposed within a plurality of scanning areas, i.e. areas A1-A4 in fig. 4c; Para. [0032], further shows that each of the scannable areas may be manually denoted by the operator), and creates and outputs a teaching program for scanning the at least one three-dimensional region shown in the new auxiliary screen, based on the operator operation (Para. [0007] and [0035] shows that the system creates a motion program for the robot to follow when scanning the previously define regions).
Regarding claim 12, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 11, wherein the three-dimensional region includes each of two auxiliary scanning regions of the sensor (Para. [0032] and fig. 4c, show that the plurality of scannable areas are disposed within the 3D space).
Regarding claim 13, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 11, wherein the generation unit generates a three-dimensional region for scanning from a scan start point of one of the two selected three-dimensional regions to a scan end point of the other three-dimensional region (Para. [0032], further shows that the order at which the areas are scanned may be determined manually, i.e. by the operator).
Regarding claim 14, Nagatsuka further teaches:
The offline teaching device according to claim 13, wherein the generation unit determines a scanning direction of the sensor for each of the three-dimensional regions based on position information of the welding line (Para. [0038], shows that a trajectory, i.e. scanning direction, for the robot is determined based off of the location of the welding lines in each of the welding areas), and the generation unit generates the combined three-dimensional region based on a scanning section and a scanning direction of each of the two or more selected three-dimensional regions (Fig. 8, shows that trajectory T may be displayed alongside the scanning areas in the displayed 3D region).
Summary
No claim is allowed
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 102
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY JAMES BULTHUIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on (571)272-8648. 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.
/A.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights