DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 27 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katou (US Pub. No. 2020/0338737).
As per Claim 1, Katou discloses a teach pendant (30) configured to send a command to a robot controller (20) configured to control motion of a robot (10) (Fig. 1; ¶15-16), the teach pendant (30) comprising:
a microphone (40) configured to receive a voice command (as per S12 in Fig. 4) input by a worker (as per “an operator” in, e.g., ¶15, 17, 27) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶15, 27); and
a processor (as per “The robot teaching device 30 may have a general computer configuration including a CPU” in ¶15) configured to
recognize (as per S12, S14 in Fig. 4) the voice command (as per S12 in Fig. 4) acquired by the microphone (40) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶15-18, 27); and
transmit, to the robot controller (20), at least one of a command (as per “in response to various commands input from the robot teaching device 30” in ¶16) for an operation of a motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42) of the robot (10) and {a command for a reset of an alarm}, based on a result of recognition (as per S12, S14 in Fig. 4) of the voice command (as per S12 in Fig. 4) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶15-18, 27, 40-43), wherein
with respect to the motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42), an annotation (as per “recognition target word whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined determination criteria” in ¶36; as per “The recognition target word editing section 315 provides functions for editing, such as adding, changing, and deleting, information stored in the correspondence storage 312” in ¶41; as per “a program name of the operation program newly created” in ¶43) different (as per “target words whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined criterion” in ¶36 and “even when the operator utters words that are somewhat different from a recognition target word or even when a slight recognition error occurs in the voice recognition processing, these are added as recognition target words, thereby making it possible to subsequently use such recognition target words” in ¶39) from a name of the motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42) is set as attribute information (as per “a new target word in the corresponding storage 312” in ¶43) (Fig. 2; ¶36-43), and
the processor (as per “The robot teaching device 30 may have a general computer configuration including a CPU” in ¶15) is configured to, in response to recognizing (as per 311) that a voice of the worker (as per “an operator” in, e.g., ¶15, 17, 27) matches (as per “target words whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined criterion” in ¶36 and “even when the operator utters words that are somewhat different from a recognition target word or even when a slight recognition error occurs in the voice recognition processing, these are added as recognition target words, thereby making it possible to subsequently use such recognition target words” in ¶39) the annotation (as per “recognition target word whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined determination criteria” in ¶36; as per “The recognition target word editing section 315 provides functions for editing, such as adding, changing, and deleting, information stored in the correspondence storage 312” in ¶41; as per “a program name of the operation program newly created” in ¶43), transmit, to the robot controller (20), the command (as per “in response to various commands input from the robot teaching device 30” in ¶16) for the operation of the motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42) corresponding to the annotation (as per “recognition target word whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined determination criteria” in ¶36; as per “The recognition target word editing section 315 provides functions for editing, such as adding, changing, and deleting, information stored in the correspondence storage 312” in ¶41; as per “a program name of the operation program newly created” in ¶43) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶15-18, 27, 36-43).
As per Claim 2, Katou further discloses:
a display (31) configured to detect an input operation of touching a screen (as per “touch panel” in ¶17) by the worker (as per “… a soft key (not illustrated) arranged as an image is provided. The operator may operate an operation key (soft key) to teach or operate the robot 10” in ¶17), wherein
the display (31) is configured to display on the screen (as per “touch panel” in ¶17) at least one icon (as per “The operator may operate an operation key (soft key) to teach or operate the robot 10” in ¶17”) for the operation of the motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42) of the robot (10) (Figs. 1-2, 7; ¶15-17, 36-43) or {for the reset of the alarm}, and
the processor (as per “The robot teaching device 30 may have a general computer configuration including a CPU” in ¶15) is configured to, based on the input operation of touching the at least one icon (as per “soft key” in ¶17) displayed on the screen (as per “touch panel” in ¶17) by the worker (as per “operator” in ¶17), transmit a command (as per “in response to various commands input from the robot teaching device 30” in ¶16) corresponding to the icon (as per “The operator may operate an operation key (soft key) to teach or operate the robot 10” in ¶17”) to the robot controller (20) (Fig. 1; ¶15-17).
As per Claim 8, Katou discloses a robot control system (20, 30) (Fig. 1; ¶15-16), comprising:
a teach pendant (30) (Fig. 1; ¶15); and
a robot controller (20) configured to control motion of a robot (10) based on a command (as per “in response to various commands input from the robot teaching device 30” in ¶16) from the teach pendant (30) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶15-18, 27, 40-43), wherein
the teach pendant (30) comprises:
a microphone (40) configured to receive a voice command (as per S12 in Fig. 4) input by a worker (as per “an operator” in, e.g., ¶15, 17, 27) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶15, 27); and
a processor (as per “The robot teaching device 30 may have a general computer configuration including a CPU” in ¶15) configured to
recognize (as per S12, S14 in Fig. 4) the voice command (as per S12 in Fig. 4) acquired by the microphone (40) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶15-18, 27), and
transmit, to the robot controller(20), at least one of a command (as per “in response to various commands input from the robot teaching device 30” in ¶16) for an operation of a motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42) of the robot (10) and {a command for a reset of an alarm}, based on a result of recognition (as per S12, S14 in Fig. 4) of the voice command (as per S12 in Fig. 4) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶15-18, 27, 40-43),
with respect to the motion program(as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42), an annotation (as per “recognition target word whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined determination criteria” in ¶36; as per “The recognition target word editing section 315 provides functions for editing, such as adding, changing, and deleting, information stored in the correspondence storage 312” in ¶41; as per “a program name of the operation program newly created” in ¶43) different (as per “target words whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined criterion” in ¶36 and “even when the operator utters words that are somewhat different from a recognition target word or even when a slight recognition error occurs in the voice recognition processing, these are added as recognition target words, thereby making it possible to subsequently use such recognition target words” in ¶39) from a name of the motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42) is set as attribute information (as per “a new target word in the corresponding storage 312” in ¶43) (Fig. 2; ¶36-43), and
the processor (as per “The robot teaching device 30 may have a general computer configuration including a CPU” in ¶15) is configured to, in response to recognizing (as per 311) that a voice of the worker (as per “an operator” in, e.g., ¶15, 17, 27) matches (as per “target words whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined criterion” in ¶36 and “even when the operator utters words that are somewhat different from a recognition target word or even when a slight recognition error occurs in the voice recognition processing, these are added as recognition target words, thereby making it possible to subsequently use such recognition target words” in ¶39) the annotation (as per “recognition target word whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined determination criteria” in ¶36; as per “The recognition target word editing section 315 provides functions for editing, such as adding, changing, and deleting, information stored in the correspondence storage 312” in ¶41; as per “a program name of the operation program newly created” in ¶43), transmit, to the robot controller (20), the command (as per “in response to various commands input from the robot teaching device 30” in ¶16) for the operation of the motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42) corresponding to the annotation (as per “recognition target word whose difference from a voice-inputted word satisfies predetermined determination criteria” in ¶36; as per “The recognition target word editing section 315 provides functions for editing, such as adding, changing, and deleting, information stored in the correspondence storage 312” in ¶41; as per “a program name of the operation program newly created” in ¶43) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶15-18, 27, 36-43).
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.
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.
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou (US Pub. No. 2020/0338737) in view of Watanabe (US Pub. No. 2004/0133312).
As per Claim 3, Katou discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Katou does not expressly disclose:
a speaker configured to output predetermined information by another voice, wherein
the processor is configured to cause the speaker to output the another voice related to the voice command of the worker.
Watanabe discloses a robot mechanism (1) and a robot control unit (2) for controlling the robot mechanism unit (1) (Fig. 1; ¶35). The robot control unit (2) includes a communications port (26) that connects with a voice/character data conversion device (3), a teaching pendant (6), and an information processing device (7) (Fig. 1; ¶35). A speaker device (5) is connected to the voice/character data conversion device (3) and the speaker device (5) publicly addresses the voice input by an operator into the voice/character data conversion device (3) for public announcement and check of the input voice command (Fig. 1; ¶36). As such, Watanbe discloses: a speaker (5) configured to output predetermined information by another voice (as per “for public announcement and check of the input voice command” in ¶36), wherein the processor (3) is configured to cause the speaker (5) to output the another voice (as per “for public announcement and check of the input voice command” in ¶36) related to the voice command of the worker (as per “input voice command” in ¶36”). Like Katou, Watanabe is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Katou and Watanabe, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Watanabe to the system of Katou since doing so would enhance the system by providing a check of the input voice command.
As per Claim 4, Katou discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Katou further discloses wherein the operation of the motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42) of the robot (10) includes selection (as per “selecting an operation program” in ¶22) of the motion program (as per “an editing screen 351 of an operation program displayed on the display device 31 by the program editing section 322” in ¶42) of the robot (10) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶15-27, 40-43).
Katou does not expressly disclose wherein an operation of the motion program of the robot includes activation and a stop of the motion program of a robot.
Watanabe discloses a robot mechanism (1) and a robot control unit (2) for controlling the robot mechanism unit (1) (Fig. 1; ¶35). The robot control unit (2) includes a program memory (23) for storing a robot program (23a) and management data (23b) for managing the robot program (23a) (Fig. 1; ¶35). The management data (23b) stores an operation command issued by an operator by voice to the robot through a microphone (42) including an operation command (M2) for “prepare to resume” and an operation program (M1) for “stop cycle” (Fig. 2; ¶38). As such, Watanabe discloses wherein an operation of the motion program (23a) of the robot (1) includes activation (as per M2) and a stop (as per M1) of the motion program (as per 23a) of the robot (1). In this way, even an unskilled operator can easily issue a command for a robot (¶65). Like Katou, Watanabe is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Katou and Watanabe, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Watanabe to the system of Katou since doing so would enhance the system by allowing even an unskilled operator to easily issue a command for a robot.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou (US Pub. No. 2020/0338737) in view of Ozaki (US Pub. No. 2018/0056520).
As per Claim 6, Katou discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Katou does not expressly disclose wherein the robot is a cooperative robot configured to perform work together with the worker.
Ozaki discloses a robot (3) that cooperates with a human (1) to transport a workpiece (W) (Fig. 4; ¶59). As such, Ozaki discloses wherein the robot (3) is a cooperative robot configured to perform work (as per transporting the workpiece W) together with the worker (1). Like Katou, Ozaki is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Katou and Ozaki, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ozai to the system of Katou since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system to transport a specified workpiece.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katou (US Pub. No. 2020/0338737) in view of Watanabe (US Patent No. 6,088,628).
As per Claim 7, Katou discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Katou further discloses:
a display (31) configured to display an image (as per “… a soft key (not illustrated) arranged as an image is provided. The operator may operate an operation key (soft key) to teach or operate the robot 10” in ¶17) (Fig. 1; ¶15-17).
Katou does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to cause the display to display a three-dimensional image of the robot such that the three-dimensional image of the robot corresponds to a current posture of the robot.
Watanabe discloses a robot (20), a robot controller (10), and a teaching operation panel (30) (Figs. 1-2; 3:45-4:62). The teaching operation panel (30) includes a control section (33) and functions as a graphic display device for displaying a graphic image (20’) of the real robot (20) (Figs. 1-2; 4:6-62). The graphic image (20’) is updated based on two-dimensional data on the position of a hand (A’) of the graphic image (20’) which is designated by the touch panel (30) and data for designating a plane and the robot controller (10) receives three-dimensional position data prepared by the teaching operation panel (30) and thereby controls the movement of the real robot (20) (Figs. 2-3; 4:33-67). In a jog-feeding operation, the hand (A’) of the robot (20’) imaged on the display screen (30) moves and stops as indicated by the arrow and the hand of the real robot (20) also moves and stops following the movement of its image as indicated by the arrow (12:52-59). As such, Watanabe discloses wherein the processor (33) is configured to cause the display (30) to display a three-dimensional image (Figs. 2-3) of the robot (20’) such that the three-dimensional image (Figs. 2-3) of the robot (20’) corresponds to a current posture (as per jog-feeding operation) of the robot (20). Like Katou, Watanabe is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Katou and Watanabe, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Watanabe to the system of Katou since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating a jog-feeding operation
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 5 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained because (page 7 of Amendment):
Katou at the cited portion merely describes a technique in which a user is allowed to call up the editing screen of an operation program by uttering the name of the operation program. In contrast, according to at least one embodiment of the instant application, an annotation different from a name of a motion program is set as an attribution information with respect to the motion program, and in response to recognizing that a voice of the worker matches the annotation, the processor is configured to transmit, to the robot controller, the command for the operation of the motion program corresponding to the annotation. Therefore, Katou at the cited portion does not describe the above-mentioned features in claim 1.
Consistent with Applicant’s argument, Katou does disclose an embodiment in which when an operator creates a new operation program named “Handling”, the recognition target word “Handling” is stored in association with the editing screen of the operation program “Handling” in the correspondence storage section (312) by which the operator can easily call up the editing screen of the operation program “Handling” by uttering “Handling” (¶43).
However, consistent with the citations in the rejection, Katou further discloses wherein the robot teaching device (30) includes a recognition target word editing section (315) that provides functions for editing, such as adding, changing, and deleting, information stored in the correspondence storage section (¶41). With these functions, the operator can store, in association with the operating screens, recognition target words that are personally more convenient (¶41). In one embodiment, the recognition target word editing section (315) is configured to accept a recognition target word to be newly registered in the correspondence storage section (312) through voice input (¶41).
Further, Katou also discloses operations by which the recognition target word extracting section (313) adds a voice-inputted word to the correspondence storage section (312) as a new recognition target word corresponding to the operating screen associated with the recognition target word when a recognition target word is different from a voice-inputted word that satisfies predetermined criterion (¶36). Criteria for adding a new word include: (h1) a determination that the difference in characters between the uttered word and the recognition target word are within a predetermined number of characters; and (h2) a determination that the uttered word and the recognition target word have the same meaning (¶36-38). For example, the operator utters “shift program” with the intention of calling up the operating screen “Program Shift” and, in response, the recognition target word extracting section (313) stores “shift program” as a new recognition target word in association with the operating screen “Program Shift” in the correspondence storage (312) (¶39).
In view of these teachings of Katou, Katou teaches “an annotation different from a name of a motion program is set as an attribution information with respect to the motion program, and in response to recognizing that a voice of the worker matches the annotation, the processor is configured to transmit, to the robot controller, the command for the operation of the motion program corresponding to the annotation” as claimed in that the computer (¶15) as per the teaching device (30) of Katou includes a target word editing section (315) that allows a user to add (via 312) recognition target words for associating personally more convenient words with operating screens (¶41) and further includes a recognition target word extraction section (313) that automatically adds new target words when a differently uttered word is within predetermine criteria of a recognition target word (¶36-39). Accordingly, Katou discloses all limitations in the claim language at issue.
As such, Applicant’s assertion that “Katou at the cited portion merely describes a technique in which a user is allowed to call up the editing screen of an operation program by uttering the name of the operation program” involves an improperly narrow interpretation of the teachings of the cited reference that is not consistent with embodiments identified in the rejections. 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 should not be maintained because “Watanabe at the cited portions does not rectify the deficiencies of Katou” (page 8, 9 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the alleged deficiencies are not present in Katou. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Ozaki at the cited portions does not rectify the deficiencies of Katou” (page 8 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the alleged deficiencies are not present in Katou. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kassow (US Pub. No. 2009/0289591) and Kitamura (US Pub. No. 2021/0003991) disclose interface control systems.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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