DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans (US20090299524).
Regarding claim 1, Evans teaches a system for controlling a plurality of robots, comprising:
a Human Machine Interface (HMI) device (at least [0034] and Figure 4 disclosing an HMI of a teach pendant);
a plurality of controllers, wherein each of the controllers correspond to a particular robot ([0009] The shortcomings of the prior art systems are avoided by allowing the pendant to make connection via a network (Ethernet, wireless, any such connection) to any robot controller that is designated to be part of the overall system. This allows a system to be configured with multiple robot controllers and one or multiple pendants. In such a system any pendant can connect to and operate any controller. With this approach as many teach pendants as are required at a given time to do teaching operations can be provided. [0034]-[0035], figure 2 disclosing the plurality of controllers corresponding to different robots. At least [0035] disclosing the controller for the designated robot); and
a Teach-Pendant Unit Multiplexer (TPU-MUX) comprising a processor ([0032] disclosing the network 12 as a multiplexer including a server “processor”), and
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor ([0032] disclosing the server runs a program which is interpreted to be stored in memory);
wherein the memory stores processor-executable instructions, which on execution, cause the processor to ([0032] disclosing the program running on a server of the network acting as a multiplexer):
allow the HMI device to communicate with one of the plurality of controllers at a time ([0032] disclosing the server does not allow the connection of more than one device at a time); and
allow the HMI device to switch from one controller to another, among the plurality of controllers ([0032]-[0035] disclosing selectively connecting to different controllers).
Regarding claim 3, Evans teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed cause the processor to allow the HMI device to initially communicate with a default controller connected to the TPU-MUX, in an event when TPU-MUX is switched ON for first time ([0034] disclosing the teaching device connects to a default controller, which is interpreted to be the controller it connects to when it is first turned on if it is not connected to another controller by user selection).
Regarding claim 4, Evans teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed cause the processor to:
fetch at least one of: active list of the plurality of controllers connected to the TPU- MUX, event logs from the plurality of controllers, system information and system files, in an event when the TPU-MUX is turned ON or when requested by the HMI device ([0034] disclosing the controller provides the list to the HMI on the display screen allowing the user to select between controllers, the list is shown when a user selects the view screen of available devices); and
share the fetched active list of the plurality of controllers, the event logs, the system information and the system files with the HMI device ([0032]-[0036] disclosing the active list of connected devices is shared on the HMI).
Regarding claim 5, Evans teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions when executed cause the processor to share one of controller ID’s and system names, of the plurality of controllers, connected to the TPU-MUX, along with the event logs with the HMI device ([0032]-[0036] disclosing sharing the names of the available controllers and the colors shows the currently connected device and shows if the connection is lost “event log” and if a device is connected or not connected “which are all indicative of an event log”).
Regarding claim 9, Evans teaches a method for controlling plurality of robots, the method comprising:
connecting a plurality of controllers to a Human Machine Interface (HMI) device, via a Teach Pendant Unit Multiplexer (TPU-MUX) (([0032] disclosing the network 12 as a multiplexer including a server “processor”), [0032]-[0036] disclosing the server does not allow the connection of more than one device at a time to an HMI);
allowing the HMI device to communicate with one of the plurality of controllers at time [0032]-[0036] disclosing the server does not allow the connection of more than one device at a time to an HMI);; and
allowing the HMI device to switch from one controller to another, among the plurality of controllers ([0032]-[0035] disclosing selectively connecting to different controllers).
Regarding claim 14, Evans teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising performing at least one of enable, disable and emergency stop function for any of the plurality of the connected controllers by a single command ([0033] disclosing the switch to emergency stop the plurality of robot controllers).
Claims 10, 11, 12 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 4, 3, 5, respectively, see above rejection.
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.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Evans (US20090299524) and Soffer (US20140015673).
Regarding claim 2, Evans teaches the system of claim 1. Evan does not teach wherein the TPU-MUX further comprises: an input node to connect the TPU-MUX to the HMI device; and
a plurality of output nodes to connect the TPU-MUX to the plurality of controllers;
wherein the plurality of output nodes and the plurality of controllers are connected in 1:1 configuration.
Soffer teaches wherein the TPU-MUX further comprises: an input node to connect the TPU-MUX to the HMI device ([0092] discloses the microcontroller having a USB host function that connects the user device “HMI” to a USB device “input node”); and
a plurality of output nodes to connect the TPU-MUX to the plurality of controllers ([0099] and figure 5 further teaches that the device also includes a multiplexer connected to the controller and a plurality of computers “equivalent to controllers” connected to the multiplexer, wherein the microcontroller selects which computer the multiplexer selects);
wherein the plurality of output nodes and the plurality of controllers are connected in 1:1 configuration ([0099] disclosing a connection between the user device and the first computer, i.e., 1:1 connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the network connection of Evans by substituting the connection of Soffer of the multiplexer; which is an obvious design choice for connecting devices as well, thus enabling selection of one on one connection through the microcontroller selecting the user chosen connection device, yielding predictable results. the wired connection as shown in figure 5 provides an advantage of more stable connection.
Claims 6-7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Evans (US20090299524) and Kobayashi (US20200338740, from IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Evans teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the HMI device comprises an interactive User Interface (UI) that displays icons for the plurality of controllers along with the controller ID’s, at the same time ([0032]-[0036] and figure 5 disclosing the icons for plurality of controllers including the ID as can be seen such as “arcrob01”),.
Kobayashi teaches and the system names ([0010] disclosing displaying the identification act data, [0075] disclosing the data includes a model name “system name”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Evans to combine the teaching of Kobayashi of displaying a system name which is an obvious design choice yielding predictable results and providing an extra step to avoid choosing an incorrect device thus improving the choice by a user.
Regarding claim 7, Evans as modified by Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the displayed icons allow selection of one of the plurality of controllers to control respective robot and monitor the health of the plurality of controllers by evaluating the event logs (Evans [0032]-[0036] and figures 4-5 disclosing the display of the icon along with an indication of an event log including the disconnected devices, i.e., allows the user to monitor the plurality of controller’s health based on which one is connected and losing its connectivity).
Regarding claim 13, Evans teaches the system of claim 9, displaying icons for the plurality of controllers, on the HMI device, connected to the TPU-MUX, along with the controller ID’s, at the same time ([0032]-[0036] and figure 5 disclosing the icons for plurality of controllers including the ID as can be seen such as “arcrob01”),.
Allowing selection of any of the plurality of controllers for controlling respective robot (Evans [0032]-[0036] and figures 4-5 disclosing the display of the icons that allow connection to the different controllers, along with an indication of an event log including the disconnected devices, i.e., allows the user to monitor the plurality of controller’s health based on which one is connected and losing its connectivity).
monitoring the health of the plurality of controllers by evaluating the event logs (Evans [0032]-[0036] and figures 4-5 disclosing the display of the icon along with an indication of an event log including the disconnected devices, i.e., allows the user to monitor the plurality of controller’s health based on which one is connected and losing its connectivity).
Kobayashi teaches and the system names ([0010] disclosing displaying the identification act data, [0075] disclosing the data includes a model name “system name”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Evans to combine the teaching of Kobayashi of displaying a system name which is an obvious design choice yielding predictable results and providing an extra step to avoid choosing an incorrect device thus improving the choice by a user.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Evans (US20090299524) and Enderson (WO02078913, from IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Evans teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the HMI device further comprises a plurality of switching modules that allow to execute at least one of enable, disable and emergency stop function for any of the plurality of connected controllers ([0033] disclosing the switch to emergency stop the plurality of robot controllers).
While evans does not disclose the plurality of switches.
Enderson teaches the plurality of switches (pages 12-13 and Figure 4 shows the switches 4a and 10d to stop the robots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the plurality of switches on each device and on a teaching pendant in order to effectively stop the robot from any proximity to the robot and in such a case when a person is in direct danger and does not have the teaching pendant will have access to multiple buttons to emergency stop the robots thus improving personal safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20170113343 discloses a single teaching pendant communicating with plurality of robot controllers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B