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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of EP23201061.1 on 9/29/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 9/11/24. It has been annotated and considered.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)(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 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Atohira (US 20190329411 hereinafter Atohira).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 9), Atohira teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
generating a model of an automation system comprising a work environment and a robot configured to move within the work environment (See at least: Fig. [0018] The simulation device 50 has three-dimensional model data of a robot system including a cooperative robot, a workpiece and a peripheral device, and has a function to generate an image in which the robot system model is arranged in a three-dimensional virtual space and make the generated image be displayed on a display section 83 (see FIG. 2) of the head-mounted display 80. Within a frame boarder of broken lines in FIG. 1, an example of an image is illustrated in which a cooperative robot model 20M, a workpiece model 10M, and a peripheral device model 11M are displayed as pseudo three-dimensional objects in a virtual space (the display section 83 of the head-mounted display 80).
positioning a first planning hint within the work environment, the planning hint defining a first pose of the robot that can be used in moving the robot from an initial pose to a target pose; and
displaying a graphical representation of the robot positioned in the first pose (See at least: Figs. 6-8; [0037]-[0039]; [0039] FIG. 8 illustrates an example in which a preview image 104 depicting a next operation of the cooperative robot model 20M is displayed as operation path information. The preview image 104 is a pseudo image of the cooperative robot model 20M arranged at the next operation position of the cooperative robot model 20M. As an example, the preview image 104 is displayed immediately before the cooperative robot model 20M having held the workpiece model 10M starts to move. This makes it possible for the operator 90 to appropriately recognize the next operation to be carried out by the cooperative robot model 20M. A moving picture in which the robot model 20M moves to its next position may be displayed as a preview image.).
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly 10), Atohira teaches a method further comprising:
using the planning hint, generating a path for the robot to move from the initial pose to the target pose without colliding with any objects (See at least: [0042] via “The simulation execution section 503 may include a function to automatically change the operation path of the cooperative robot model 20M in such a manner as to prevent the contact between the operator 90 and the cooperative robot model 20M, for example, based on the relative distance between the operator 90 and the cooperative robot model 20M. Further, equal to or more than two of the images among the above-described image 101 (the operation direction and speed), the operation trajectory 102, the image 103 (an operation program) and the preview image 104 of the operation path information, may be simultaneously displayed.”).
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly 11), Atohira teaches wherein the path includes the robot moving into the first pose between the initial pose and the target pose (See at least: [0039] FIG. 8 illustrates an example in which a preview image 104 depicting a next operation of the cooperative robot model 20M is displayed as operation path information. The preview image 104 is a pseudo image of the cooperative robot model 20M arranged at the next operation position of the cooperative robot model 20M. As an example, the preview image 104 is displayed immediately before the cooperative robot model 20M having held the workpiece model 10M starts to move. This makes it possible for the operator 90 to appropriately recognize the next operation to be carried out by the cooperative robot model 20M. A moving picture in which the robot model 20M moves to its next position may be displayed as a preview image.). Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 12), Atohira teaches positioning a plurality of planning hints within the work environment, each planning hint defining a respective pose and location of the robot within the work environment (See at least: Figs. 6-8; [0037]-[0039]; [0039]; Note: Multiple preview images teach a plurality of planning hints).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atohira in view of Wang et al. (US Patent 11813753 hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly 13), Atohira fails to teach the following limitation, but Wang teaches the method further comprising: using the plurality of planning hints, generating a plurality of paths for the robot to move from the initial pose to the target pose (See at least: Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Atohira in view of Wang to teach using the plurality of planning hints, generating a plurality of paths for the robot to move from the initial pose to the target pose to calculate and choose the best path for the robot (e.g. most optimized route, no collisions, etc.).
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly 14), Atohira teaches wherein at least one path of the plurality of paths defines a collision-free path in which the robot avoids collisions with any objects (See at least: [0042] via “The simulation execution section 503 may include a function to automatically change the operation path of the cooperative robot model 20M in such a manner as to prevent the contact between the operator 90 and the cooperative robot model 20M, for example, based on the relative distance between the operator 90 and the cooperative robot model 20M. Further, equal to or more than two of the images among the above-described image 101 (the operation direction and speed), the operation trajectory 102, the image 103 (an operation program) and the preview image 104 of the operation path information, may be simultaneously displayed.”). Regarding claim 7 (and similarly 15), Atohira teaches wherein the at least one path includes at least one of the poses and locations defined by at least one of the planning hints (See at least: Figs. 6-8; [0037]-[0039]; [0039]). Regarding claim 8, Atohira teaches wherein the at least one path includes no more than two of the poses and locations defined by no more than two of the planning hints (See at least: Figs. 6-8; [0037]-[0039]; [0039] Note: A short path of only 2 points could teach this limitation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
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.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657