DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 30 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 15-29 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoue (US Patent No. 6,218,802) in view of Kiyota (US Pub. No. 2010/0268386), further in view of Takeuchi (US Pub. No. 2019/0232493).
As per Claim 15, Onoue discloses a device (260) configured to switch (via 240) a tool (230, 270), the device (260) having a function of selecting (as per position of knob 241 between modes 242, 243, 244) an operation mode (242, 243, 244) of a robot (210) (Fig. 1; 6:45-59, 9:23-51), the device (260) comprising a processor (262) (Fig. 5; 8:32-53) configured to:
switch (as per 241) the tool (230, 270) that is enabled, from a first tool (230) to a second tool (270) (Figs. 1, 8; 6:45-59, 9:23-51, 10:11-11:38); and
switch (as per 241) the operation mode (242, 243, 244) to a predetermined operation mode (as per one of 242, 243, 244) and fix (as per “the operator can choose exclusively” in 9:25) the predetermined operation mode (as per one of 242, 243, 244) (Figs. 1, 8; 6:45-59, 9:23-51, 10:11-11:38).
Onoue does not expressly disclose:
the tool having the function of selecting the operation mode; and
wherein switching involves the tool that is enabled to execute the function;
wherein the switching is performed automatically in response to receiving information for identifying the type of the robot; and
the predetermined operation mode corresponds to a type of the robot.
Kiyota discloses a robot system that includes first through third robots (1-1, 1-2, 1-3), first through third controllers (2-1, 2-2, 2-3), and first through third pendants (3-1, 3-2, 3-3) (Fig. 1; ¶18). The pendants (3-1, 3-2, 3-3) includes operation units (4-1, 4-2, 4-3) and display units (5-1, 5-2, 5-3) (Fig. 1; ¶19). The display units (5-1, 5-2, 5-3) output a screen for selecting operation modes of the robots (1-1, 1-2, 1-3) (Fig. 2; ¶27). The operation modes include: a master mode in which a robot serves as the master of cooperative working; a slave mode in which a robot serves as a slave of cooperative working; and an independent mode in which a robot works independently (Fig. 2; ¶22, 27). In this way, operation modes of the robots (1-1, 1-2, 1-3) are set according to desire of operators (¶21). Like Onoue, Kiyota is concerned with robot control systems.
Takeuchi discloses a robot (100) and a robot control device (200), the robot control device (200) including a display device (260) and input device (270) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶52-54, 57, 60). Creation of a robot control program involves steps of: create (as per S110) of an operation flow; adjust (as per S120) a parameter; convert (as per S130) the operation flow into a control program; and control (as per S140) the robot according to the control program (Fig. 5; ¶61, 70, 150, 152, 158). The step of create an operation work flow (S110) involves displaying a window (W2) as an input screen area including a robot selection area (F22) for selecting the type of robot to be used from a plurality of options (Fig. 6B; ¶70, 72). In response to selection of type of robot in the robot selection area (F22), the system displays operation parameters suitable for the selected robot type (Figs. 6B, 15A-B, 16A-B; ¶70, 72, 170-173). In this way, control parameters corresponding to the selected robot type are appropriately enabled and disabled for setting (¶170-173). Like Onoue, Takeuchi is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, and Takeuchi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota and Takeuchi to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; and appropriately enabling and disabling control parameters for setting according to specified robot type. Applying the teachings of Kiyota and Takeuchi to the system of Onoue would result in a system that operates:
wherein “the tool having a function of selecting the operation mode” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes for the plurality of robots via teaching pendants as per Kiyota;
“wherein switching involves the tool that is enabled to execute the function” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes for the plurality of robots via teaching pendants as per Kiyota;
“wherein the switching is performed automatically in response to receiving information for identifying the type of the robot” in that the system on Onoue would be adapted to include parameter setting fields following selection of robot type in a robot type selection field as per Takeuchi;
“the predetermined operation mode corresponds to a type of the robot” in that the system on Onoue would be adapted to include parameter setting fields following selection of robot type in a robot type selection field as per Takeuchi.
Claims 16-17 are re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoue (US Patent No. 6,218,802) in view of Kiyota (US Pub. No. 2010/0268386), further in view of Takeuchi (US Pub. No. 2019/0232493), further in view of Tan (WO 2018/135613 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2021/0362326).
As per Claim 16, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, and Takeuchi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Onoue does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to:
switch the tool that is enabled to execute the function, to the second tool, in response to a signal indicating that the second tool is connected to the device; or
temporarily disable the function of a plurality of the tools, when receiving a signal indicating that the plurality of tools are connected to the device simultaneously.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota and Takeuchi.
Tan discloses a robot system (120) that includes a robot (1), a controller (7), and a teach pendant (8) (Fig. 1; ¶36). The controller (7) connects with the a teach pendant cable (K2) extending from the pendant (8) via an I/F connector (10) that receives a controller cable (K1), a relay connector (11) attached to the controller cable (K1), and a connector (12) is mounted to the end of the teach pendant cable (K2) (Fig. 1; ¶38). The controller (7) includes a connection detector (70a) and a mode changer (70b) (Fig. 1; ¶39). The connection detector (70a) detects electrical connection and electrical disconnection between the controller (7) and the teach pendant (8) (Fig. 1; ¶41). The mode changer (70b): changes the operation mode of the robot (1) to a teach mode if the connection detector (70a) detects connection between the controller (7) and the teach pendant (8); and changes the operation mode of the robot (1) to a repeat mode if the connection detector (70a) detects disconnection between the controller (7) and the teach pendant (8) (Fig. 1; ¶42). In this way, operational errors made by the operator are prevented (¶11). Like Onoue, Tan is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Takeuchi, and Tan, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Takeuchi, and Tan to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; appropriately enabling and disabling control parameters for setting according to specified robot type; and preventing operational errors.
Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Takeuchi, and Tan to the system of Onoue would result in a system wherein the processor is configured to:
“switch the tool that is enabled to execute the function, to the second tool, in response to a signal indicating that the second tool is connected to the device” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to display information in teaching pendants as per Kiyota with fields as per Takeuchi and respond to connectivity of input devices as per Tan; or
{temporarily disable the function of a plurality of the tools, when receiving a signal indicating that the plurality of tools are connected to the device simultaneously}.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Takeuchi, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 16. Onoue does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to acquire the signal when the device is activated.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota and Takeuchi.
See rejection of Claim 16 for discussion of teachings of Tan. Tan further discloses wherein the detection signal corresponds to a power supply voltage (¶52).
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Takeuchi, and Tan, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Takeuchi, and Tan to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; appropriately enabling and disabling control parameters for setting according to specified robot type; and preventing operational errors.
Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Takeuchi, and Tan to the system of Onoue would result in a system “wherein the processor is configured to acquire the signal when the device is activated” in that the in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to display information in teaching pendants as per Kiyota with fields as per Takeuchi and respond to connectivity of input devices as per Tan.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoue (US Patent No. 6,218,802) in view of Kiyota (US Pub. No. 2010/0268386), further in view of Takeuchi (US Pub. No. 2019/0232493), further in view of Tan (WO 2018/135613 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2021/0362326), further in view of Masuda (US Pub. No. 2021/0138638).
As per Claim 18, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Takeuchi, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 16. Onoue does not expressly disclose wherein the tool is given a predetermined priority, and wherein the processor is configured to automatically switch the tool that is enabled to execute the function, to the second tool, when receiving the signal indicating that the second tool having a highest priority is connected to the device.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota Takeuchi.
See rejection of Claim 16 for discussion of teachings of Tan.
Masuda discloses a robot system (100A) having a robot (2) and a plurality of instruction apparatuses (3) (Fig. 7; ¶101). Priorities are set with respect to each type of the instruction apparatus (3) and the instruction apparatus to which the right for control is provided is selected based on the priorities (¶103). Information on the priorities with respect to each type of the instruction apparatus (3) is stored in the storage unit (82) of the control apparatus (8) of the robot (2) (Fig. 7; ¶103). In this way, one of the respective instruction apparatus (3) with confirmed coupling is selected based on the priorities and input of the operation program is received only from that instruction apparatus (3) (¶103). A reporting unit (34) indicates priority in the form of right of control to the operator in order to secure safety (Fig. 7; ¶69-73, 91-98). Like Onoue, Masuda is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Takeuchi, Tan, and Masuda, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Takeuchi, Tan, and Masuda to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; appropriately enabling and disabling control parameters for setting according to specified robot type; and preventing operational errors; and securing safety. Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Takeuchi, Tan, and Masuda to the system of Onoue would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the tool is given a predetermined priority” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to include priority information functionality as per Masuda; and
“wherein the tool switching unit is configured to automatically switch the tool that is enabled to execute the function, to the second tool, when receiving the signal indicating that the second tool having a highest priority is connected to the device” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes for the plurality of robots via teaching pendants as per Kiyota with fields as per Takeuchi, respond to connectivity of input devices as per Tan, and include priority information functionality as per Masuda.
Claims 19-20, 22-23, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoue (US Patent No. 6,218,802) in view of Kiyota (US Pub. No. 2010/0268386), further in view of Johannessen (US Pub. No. 2004/0148058), further in view of Tan (WO 2018/135613 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2021/0362326).
As per Claim 19, Onoue discloses a device (260) configured to switch (via 240) a tool (230, 270), the device (260) having a function of selecting (as per position of knob 241 between modes 242, 243, 244) an operation mode (242, 243, 244) of a robot (210) (Fig. 1; 6:45-59, 9:23-51), the device (260) comprising a processor (262) (Fig. 5; 8:32-53) configured to:
switch (as per 241) the tool (230, 270) that is enabled, from a first tool (230) to a second tool (270) (Figs. 1, 8; 6:45-59, 9:23-51, 10:11-11:38); or
{temporarily disable the function of a plurality of the tools, in response to receiving a signal indicating that the plurality of tools are connected to the device simultaneously}.
Onoue does not expressly disclose:
the tool having the function of selecting the operation mode;
wherein switching involves the tool that is enabled to execute the function;
wherein the switching is performed automatically in response to receiving a signal indicating that the second tool is connected to the device;
wherein the signal includes information for identifying a type of the second tool.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota.
Johannessen discloses a robot (3), a portable operating unit (1), and a control unit (2) (Fig. 1; ¶37). The portable operating unit (1) includes function keys (6) that permit an operator to select various states for the control system and a joystick (7) for controlling movement of the robot (3) (Fig. 1; ¶37). The control unit (2) includes an operator panel (13) having keys for setting the control unit (Fig. 1; ¶37). A key device (10) is transferrable between a slot (8) in the portable operating unit (1) and a slot (15) in the control unit (2) for governing the robot (3) in view of the location of the key device (10) (Figs. 1-3; ¶37-40). In this way, control of the robot (3) is responsive to activation via the key device (10) of a specified one of the operating unit (1) and control unit (2) (¶40-43). Like Onoue, Johannessen is concerned with robot control systems.
Tan discloses a robot system (120) that includes a robot (1), a controller (7), and a teach pendant (8) (Fig. 1; ¶36). The controller (7) connects with the a teach pendant cable (K2) extending from the pendant (8) via an I/F connector (10) that receives a controller cable (K1), a relay connector (11) attached to the controller cable (K1), and a connector (12) is mounted to the end of the teach pendant cable (K2) (Fig. 1; ¶38). The controller (7) includes a connection detector (70a) and a mode changer (70b) (Fig. 1; ¶39). The connection detector (70a) detects electrical connection and electrical disconnection between the controller (7) and the teach pendant (8) (Fig. 1; ¶41). The mode changer (70b): changes the operation mode of the robot (1) to a teach mode if the connection detector (70a) detects connection between the controller (7) and the teach pendant (8); and changes the operation mode of the robot (1) to a repeat mode if the connection detector (70a) detects disconnection between the controller (7) and the teach pendant (8) (Fig. 1; ¶42). In this way, operational errors made by the operator are prevented (¶11). Like Onoue, Tan is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; adapting the system to select input devices according to desire of operators; and preventing operational errors.
Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue would result in a system that operates:
wherein “the tool having the function of selecting the operation mode” that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes for the plurality of robots via teaching pendants as per Kiyota;
“wherein switching involves the tool that is enabled to execute the function” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes for the plurality of robots via teaching pendants as per Kiyota;
“wherein the switching is performed automatically in response to receiving a signal indicating that the second tool is connected to the device” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to display information in teaching pendants as per Kiyota and respond to connectivity of input devices as per Tan; and
“wherein the signal includes information for identifying a type of the second tool” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to respond to connectivity of input devices as per Tan and activation of specified input devices as per Johannessen.
As per Claim 20, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. Onoue does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to acquire the signal when the device is activated.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota
See rejection of Claim 19 for discussion of teachings of Johannessen, and Tan.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; adapting the system to select input devices according to desire of operators; and preventing operational errors.
Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is configured to acquire the signal when the device is activated” in that the in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to respond to connectivity of input devices as per Tan.
As per Claim 22, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. Onoue further discloses wherein the tool (230, 270) includes at least one of:
{a mode switching device including a physical switch for selecting the operation mode;
a controller of the robot or a peripheral device of the robot};
a teaching device (230) configured to operate the robot (210) to teach the robot (210) a predetermined operation (as per “teaching data inputted by the key-inputting means 232” in 8:66-67, as per “Then the joints JT1 to JT6 of the robot body 210 can respectively pivot following the inputted pivoting values” in 9:14-16); and
{a host controller configured to provide a command to the controller or the peripheral device}.
As per Claim 23, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. Onoue further discloses wherein the operation mode (242, 243, 244) includes at least one of: a teaching mode (as per 242, 243) for teaching the robot (210) a predetermined operation (Fig. 1; 9:23-46); {an operation check mode for causing the robot to test the predetermined operation in order to check the predetermined operation}; and {an automatic operation mode for operating the robot automatically in accordance with an operation program for the predetermined operation}.
As per Claim 25, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. Onoue further discloses the processor (262) is further configured to receive an input (as per “knob for operating 241 which the operator can turn” in 9:23-24) for switching the tool (230) that is enabled to execute the function, to the second tool (270) (Figs. 1, 5, 8; 6:45-59, 8:32-53, 9:23-51, 10:11-11:38).
Onoue does not expressly disclose wherein the tool is enabled to execute the function.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota
See rejection of Claim 19 for discussion of teachings of Johannessen, and Tan.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; adapting the system to select input devices according to desire of operators; and preventing operational errors.
Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue would result in a system that operates “wherein the tool is enabled to execute the function” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes as per Kiyota.
As per Claim 26, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Onoue does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to:
generate image data for receiving the input,
receive the input through the image data.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota. Kiyota further discloses:
generate image data (as per 5-1, 5-2, 5-3) configured to generate image data for receiving the input (as per display in Fig. 2) (Figs. 1-2; ¶18-19, 21-22, 27),
receives the input through the image data (as per 5-1, 5-2, 5-3) (Figs. 1-2; ¶18-19, 21-22, 27).
See rejection of Claim 19 for discussion of teachings of Johannessen, and Tan.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; adapting the system to select input devices according to desire of operators; and preventing operational errors.
Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue would result in a system that operates “wherein the processor is further configured to: generate image data for receiving the input, receive the input through the image data” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes as per Kiyota.
As per Claim 27, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. The combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan teaches or suggests a teaching device (as per 230 of Onoue) or controller (as per 260 of Onoue) of a robot (as per 210 of Onoue), comprising the device of claim 19 (see rejection of Claim 19).
As per Claim 28, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. The combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan further teaches or suggests a robot system (Fig. 1 of Onoue), comprising:
a robot (210 of Onoue);
a tool (230, 270 of Onoue) having a function of selecting an operation mode of the robot (see rejection of Claim 19); and
the device of claim 19 (see rejection of Claim 19).
As per Claim 29, Onoue discloses a method of switching (via 240) a tool (230, 270), the method having a function of selecting (as per position of knob 241 between modes 242, 243, 244) an operation mode (242, 243, 244) of a robot (210) (Fig. 1; 6:45-59, 9:23-51), the method comprising:
switching (as per 241), by a processor (262) (Fig. 5; 8:32-53), the tool (230, 270) that is enabled, from a first tool (230) to a second tool (270) (Figs. 1, 8; 6:45-59, 9:23-51, 10:11-11:38); or
{disabling the function of a plurality of the tools, in response to receiving a signal indicating that the plurality of tools are connected to the device simultaneously}.
Onoue does not expressly disclose:
the tool having the function of selecting the operation mode;
wherein switching involves the tool that is enabled to execute the function;
wherein the switching is performed automatically in response to receiving a signal indicating that the second tool is connected to the device;
wherein the signal includes information for identifying a type of the second tool.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota.
See rejection of Claim 19 for discussion of teachings of Johannessen and Tan.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; adapting the system to select input devices according to desire of operators; and preventing operational errors.
Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan to the system of Onoue would result in a system that operates:
wherein “the tool having the function of selecting the operation mode” that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes for the plurality of robots via teaching pendants as per Kiyota;
“wherein switching involves the tool that is enabled to execute the function” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes for the plurality of robots via teaching pendants as per Kiyota;
“wherein the switching is performed automatically in response to receiving a signal indicating that the second tool is connected to the device” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to display information in teaching pendants as per Kiyota and respond to connectivity of input devices as per Tan; and
“wherein the signal includes information for identifying a type of the second tool” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to respond to connectivity of input devices as per Tan and activation of specified input devices as per Johannessen.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoue (US Patent No. 6,218,802) in view of Kiyota (US Pub. No. 2010/0268386), further in view of Johannessen (US Pub. No. 2004/0148058), further in view of Tan (WO 2018/135613 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2021/0362326), further in view of Masuda (US Pub. No. 2021/0138638).
As per Claim 21, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Takeuchi, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 19. Onoue does not expressly disclose wherein the tool is given a predetermined priority, and wherein the processor is configured to automatically switch the tool that is enabled to execute the function, to the second tool, when receiving the signal indicating that the second tool having a highest priority is connected to the device.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota.
See rejection of Claim 19 for discussion of teachings of Johannessen and Tan.
Masuda discloses a robot system (100A) having a robot (2) and a plurality of instruction apparatuses (3) (Fig. 7; ¶101). Priorities are set with respect to each type of the instruction apparatus (3) and the instruction apparatus to which the right for control is provided is selected based on the priorities (¶103). Information on the priorities with respect to each type of the instruction apparatus (3) is stored in the storage unit (82) of the control apparatus (8) of the robot (2) (Fig. 7; ¶103). In this way, one of the respective instruction apparatus (3) with confirmed coupling is selected based on the priorities and input of the operation program is received only from that instruction apparatus (3) (¶103). A reporting unit (34) indicates priority in the form of right of control to the operator in order to secure safety (Fig. 7; ¶69-73, 91-98). Like Onoue, Masuda is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, Tan, and Masuda, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, Tan, and Masuda to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; adapting the system to select input devices according to desire of operators; preventing operational errors; and securing safety. Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, Tan, and Masuda to the system of Onoue would result in a system that operates: “wherein the tool is given a predetermined priority, and wherein the processor is configured to automatically switch the tool that is enabled to execute the function, to the second tool, when receiving the signal indicating that the second tool having a highest priority is connected to the device” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes for the plurality of robots via teaching pendants as per Kiyota, respond to connectivity of input devices as per Tan and activation of specified input devices as per Johannessen, and include priority information functionality as per Masuda.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onoue (US Patent No. 6,218,802) in view of Kiyota (US Pub. No. 2010/0268386), further in view of Johannessen (US Pub. No. 2004/0148058), further in view of Tan (WO 2018/135613 A1; citations to US Pub. No. 2021/0362326), further in view of Svensson (US Pub. No. 2010/0262288).
As per Claim 24, the combination of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, and Tan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 23. Onoue further discloses
wherein the operation mode (242, 243, 244) includes the teaching mode (as per 242, 243) and the automatic operation mode (as per 244) (Fig. 1; 9:23-46), and
wherein the processor (262) is further configured to set an arbitrary operation mode (as per user selection of knob 241) in which any operation of the teaching mode (242, 243) and the automatic operation mode (as per 244) can be executed (Fig. 1; 9:23-46).
Onoue does not expressly disclose:
wherein the operation mode includes the operation check mode;
wherein the arbitrary operation mode involves the operation check mode; and
wherein the arbitrary operation mode is set in response to information for identifying the robot.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Kiyota.
See rejection of Claim 19 for discussion of teachings of Johannessen and Tan.
Svensson discloses a robot cell that includes a manipulator (1), robot control unit (2), a teach pendant unit (3) that includes a display screen (4), and a computer unit (10) that includes a display screen (12) (Fig. 1; ¶34-35). The computer unit (10) is provided with an off-line programming tool for simulating and programming the movement of the manipulator (Fig. 1; ¶35). The programming tool includes a graphical component for generating 3D graphics based on models and the programmer programs the desired path and robot movements using the 3D models (Fig. 1; ¶35, 37). When the user is done with the 3D modeling, lay-out and as generated a robot program, the time comes to put this on to the real robot (¶37). Like Onoue, Svensson is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, Johannessen, Tan, and Svensson, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, Tan, and Svensson to the system of Onoue since doing so would enhance the system by: adapting the system to set operating modes of a plurality of robots according to desire of operators; adapting the system to select input devices according to desire of operators; preventing operational errors; and facilitating a programmer in generating a desired path.
Applying the teachings of Kiyota, Johannessen, Tan, and Svensson to the system of Onoue would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the operation mode includes the operation check mode” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to include the programming system of Svensson;
“wherein the arbitrary operation mode involves the operation check mode” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to provide access to the programming system of Svensson; and
“wherein the arbitrary operation mode is set in response to information for identifying the robot” in that the system of Onoue would be adapted to control a plurality of robots and select operation modes as per Kiyota.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that the objection to the Abstract should not be maintained (page 7 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, this objection is not maintained.
Applicant argues that claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) should not be maintained (page 7-8 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 112 should not be maintained (page 8 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC 112 are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue and Kiyota should not be maintained because “Onoue does not teach a ‘processor’ configured to ‘automatically switch the operation mode to a predetermined operation mode corresponding to a type of the robot and fix the predetermined operation mode, in response to receiving information for identifying the type of the robot’, as recited in Applicant's amended, independent claim 15” (page 9 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Onoue and Kiyota in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue and Kiyota are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue and Kiyota should not be maintained because “Onoue does not suggest that choosing switch 240 may be automatically switched by a processor or computer, without manually turning by an operator” (page 9 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that the choosing switch (240) of Onoue may be automatically switched by a processor or computer, without manually turning by an operator as per Applicant’s argument. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue and Kiyota should not be maintained because “neither Onoue nor Kiyota suggest the ‘processor’ is configured to ‘automatically switch the operation mode to a predetermined operation mode corresponding to a type of the robot and fix the predetermined operation mode, in response to receiving information for identifying the type of the robot’ as recited in Applicant's independent claim 15” (page 10 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Onoue and Kiyota in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue and Kiyota are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue and Kiyota should not be maintained because “Onoue and Kiyota do not teach ‘receiving information for identifying the type of robot’, such as a cooperative robot” (page 10 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Onoue and Kiyota in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue and Kiyota are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue, Kiyota, and Tan should not be maintained because “a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to apply the switching function of Tan to modify Onoue” (page 11 of Amendment). However, as set forth in the rejection (see, e.g., page 7-8 of 1 October 2025 Office action), Tan teaches (see ¶42 of Tan) that the teachings of Tan are useful for preventing operational errors made by the operator and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the teachings of Tan to the system to prevent operational errors. Applicant does not identify a proper basis for setting aside these teachings of Tan. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue, Kiyota, and Tan should not be maintained because “Since Onoue does not suggest that choosing switch 240 may be automatically switched by a computer as stated above, Applicant submits that choosing switch 240 cannot be automatically switched between first-teaching mode 242 and second-teaching mode 243 in response to detecting the connection/disconnection between servo unit 260 and first teach-inputting means 230” (page 12 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that “choosing switch 240 may be automatically switched by a computer” as per Applicant’s argument. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue, Kiyota, and Tan should not be maintained because “as explicitly recited in Onoue's claim 1, the ‘second teach-inputting means’ (second-teaching mode 243) switched by the ‘choosing means’ (choosing switch 240) is a fundamental feature of Onoue, and therefore, cannot be omitted” (page 12 of Amendment).
As a preliminary matter, Applicant does not identify a definition for “fundamental feature” that informs Applicant’s interpretation of Onoue. To the extent that Applicant’s interpretation of Onoue turns on identifying some features as fundamental and other features not fundamental, Applicant’s interpretation of the reference is improperly narrow.
Even if Applicant’s improperly narrow interpretation of Onoue were applied, Applicant’s argument does not inform the propriety of any rejection in that no rejection omits teachings concerning the choosing switch of Onoue. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue, Kiyota, and Tan should not be maintained because “function (O4) of Onoue and switching function (T2) of Tan contradict each other” and “As such, a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to apply switching function (T2) of Tan to modify Onoue” (page 13 of Amendment). However, Applicant’s argument does not identify any contraction between the teachings of Onoue and a switching function of Tan. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not well-founded. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue, Kiyota, and Tan should not be maintained because “no combination of the applied art provides a processor configure to ‘automatically switch [as claimed]’ in Applicant’s independent claim 15 …; ‘automatically switch [as claimed]’ in Applicant’s independent claim 19; or a method comprising ‘automatically switching [as claimed]’ in Applicant’s independent claim 29” (page 13 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Onoue, Kiyota, and Tan in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue, Kiyota, and Tan are not maintained. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Onoue, Kiyota, Tan, and Masuda should not be maintained because “Masuda, however, fails to teach at least ‘automatically switch [as claimed]’ in Applicant’s independent claim 15 … and ‘automatically switch [as claimed]’ in Applicant’s claim 19” (page 13-14 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Masuda teaches the limitations at issue. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Conclusion
Corwin (US Patent No. 3,920,972) and Kose (US Pub. No. 2018/0311006) disclose robot control systems.
Applicant's amendment 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights