DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim(s) 2 is/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.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, the limitation states
“at least one of the first parameter and the second parameter which have a value of 1 (one) or less, is converted to a reciprocal of the parameter and the reciprocal of the parameter is inputted into the multiplication formula to obtain the calculated value”.
The ‘first parameter and the second parameter’ have not been defined in such a way that’s clear to one skilled in the art how this limitation further limits the parent claim(s). It is unclear what the units are to understand what the reciprocal would be or why it’s ‘a value of 1 (one) or less’. Defining the parameters should make the claim(s) clear. For examination purposes, conventional physics equations/parameters corresponding to Work, Torque, Speed, Force, Distance/Displacement, etc. meet the BRI of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1 recites
comparing a calculated value with a predetermined threshold value within a predetermined period of time just after a collision occurs,
the calculated value being obtained by inputting into a predetermined multiplication formula a first parameter having a correlation with a torque of the motor and a second parameter having a correlation with the torque of the motor, which is different from the first parameter,
determining that the unexpected collision has occurred when the calculated value exceeds the threshold value
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
Independent Claim(s) 6 recites
acquires a first parameter having a correlation with a torque of the motor within a predetermined period of time just after the collision occurs,
acquires a second parameter having a correlation with the torque of the motor and being different from the first parameter within the predetermined period of time just after the collision occurs,
obtains a calculated value by inputting into a predetermined multiplication formula both the first parameter and the second parameter,
compares the calculated value with a predetermined threshold value,
determines that the unexpected collision has occurred when the calculated value exceeds the threshold value
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, 6, Claim(s) 2-3 recite(s)
at least one of the first parameter and the second parameter which have a value of 1 (one) or less, is converted to a reciprocal of the parameter and the reciprocal of the parameter is inputted into the multiplication formula to obtain the calculated value.
the first parameter is
a parameter related to the torque fed back to a drive unit of the motor,
and
the second parameter is
a parameter related to a positioning deviation between a positioning command value given to the drive unit of the motor and a detecting position obtained by detecting a position of the movable portion
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. A collision detection method; A collision detection system; the system comprising: a first parameter acquisition section that; a second parameter acquisition section that; a calculation section that; a determination section that);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. generic data acquisition); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. for detecting an unexpected collision that is occurred when a movable portion has unexpectedly collided with a collided object in a mechanical apparatus including the movable portion supported by a support portion whose position is changed by a motor as a drive source).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
Claim(s) 4, 7, states:
“…
the mechanical apparatus is an apparatus for taking out a molded product,
the movable portion is a take-out head of the apparatus for taking out a molded product,
and
the support portion is a support arm supporting the take-out head,
and
the threshold value is a value being larger than the calculated value obtained by a collision allowed in a teaching work for setting an operation step for taking out a molded product by the take-out head”.
Examiner advises that incorporating claim(s) 4, 7 into the independent claim(s) would practically apply the abstract idea and cure the standing 101 rejection(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
NAKANISHI ET AL. (US 20100145515 A1) (hereinafter “NAKANISHI”)
in view of
CARL ROD NAVE (Carl Rod Nave. (Apr 6, 2023). Work. HyperPhysics. https://web.archive.org/web/20230406203335/https://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work2.html. (accessed 9/3/2026)) (hereinafter “NAVE”) (See attached screenshot).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, NAKANISHI teaches ‘A robot system includes a robot arm driven by a motor, a collision detector that detects a collision between the robot arm and an obstacle, which is provided on the robot arm, and a stopping method selector that controls the robot arm by selecting any one of all stopping methods on the basis of the information obtained by the collision detector, thereby selecting a stopping method in accordance with the status of the collision’ and the BRI of:
A collision detection method
for
detecting an unexpected collision that is occurred when a movable portion has unexpectedly collided with a collided object in a mechanical apparatus including the movable portion supported by a support portion whose position is changed by a motor as a drive source (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
the method comprises:
a step of
comparing a calculated value with a predetermined threshold value within a predetermined period of time just after a collision occurs (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
the calculated value being obtained by inputting into a predetermined formula
a first parameter having a correlation with a torque of the motor (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018)
and
a second parameter having a correlation with the torque of the motor, which is different from the first parameter (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
and
a step of
determining that the unexpected collision has occurred when the calculated value exceeds the threshold value (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018).
However, NAKANISHI is lacking the explicit language of:
a predetermined multiplication formula.
NAVE teaches an equation/definition for ‘work’ and the BRI of:
a predetermined multiplication formula (See, e.g., Work).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify NAKANISHI to include a predetermined multiplication formula.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify NAKANISHI because it would be beneficial to improve the function of robot systems. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 6, NAKANISHI teaches ‘A robot system includes a robot arm driven by a motor, a collision detector that detects a collision between the robot arm and an obstacle, which is provided on the robot arm, and a stopping method selector that controls the robot arm by selecting any one of all stopping methods on the basis of the information obtained by the collision detector, thereby selecting a stopping method in accordance with the status of the collision’ and the BRI of::
A collision detection system
for
detecting an unexpected collision that is occurred when a movable portion has unexpectedly collided with a collided object in a mechanical apparatus including the movable portion supported by a support portion whose position is changed by a motor as a drive source (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
the system comprising:
a first parameter acquisition section
that
acquires a first parameter having a correlation with a torque of the motor within a predetermined period of time just after the collision occurs (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
a second parameter acquisition section
that
acquires a second parameter having a correlation with the torque of the motor and being different from the first parameter within the predetermined period of time just after the collision occurs (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
a calculation section
that
obtains a calculated value by inputting into a predetermined formula both the first parameter and the second parameter (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
and
a determination section
that
compares the calculated value with a predetermined threshold value (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
and
determines that the unexpected collision has occurred when the calculated value exceeds the threshold value (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018).
However, NAKANISHI is lacking the explicit language of:
a predetermined multiplication formula.
NAVE teaches an equation/definition for ‘work’ and the BRI of:
a predetermined multiplication formula (See, e.g., Work).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify NAKANISHI to include a predetermined multiplication formula.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify NAKANISHI because it would be beneficial to improve the function of robot systems. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NAVE further teaches the BRI of:
at least one of the first parameter and the second parameter which have a value of 1 (one) or less, is converted to a reciprocal of the parameter and the reciprocal of the parameter is inputted into the multiplication formula to obtain the calculated value (See, e.g., Work).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify NAKANISHI to include at least one of the first parameter and the second parameter which have a value of 1 (one) or less, is converted to a reciprocal of the parameter and the reciprocal of the parameter is inputted into the multiplication formula to obtain the calculated value.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify NAKANISHI because it would be beneficial to improve the function of robot systems. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 3, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NAKANISHI further teaches the BRI of:
the first parameter is
a parameter related to the torque fed back to a drive unit of the motor (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
and
the second parameter is
a parameter related to a positioning deviation between a positioning command value given to the drive unit of the motor and a detecting position obtained by detecting a position of the movable portion (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, 7, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NAKANISHI further teaches the BRI of:
the mechanical apparatus is
an apparatus for taking out a molded product (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
the movable portion is
a take-out head of the apparatus for taking out a molded product (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
and
the support portion is
a support arm supporting the take-out head (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018),
and
the threshold value is
a value being larger than the calculated value obtained by a collision allowed in a teaching work for setting an operation step for taking out a molded product by the take-out head (See, e.g., ¶ 0008, 0017, 0018).
With respect to Claim(s) 5, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
NAVE further teaches the BRI of:
the multiplication formula is
P = Q x X, when the calculated value is P, the first parameter is Q and the second parameter is X (See, e.g., Work).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify NAKANISHI to include the multiplication formula is P = Q x X, when the calculated value is P, the first parameter is Q and the second parameter is X.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify NAKANISHI because it would be beneficial to improve the function of robot systems. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights