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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and addressed below.
Preliminary amendments filed and received on 08/09/2024 and have been accepted and approved.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2024 has been received. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, “information processing apparatus” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “apparatus”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (page 4 paragraph 4 - page 5 paragraph 1) as a computer/processor/tablet.
Regarding claim 1, “acceleration vector calculation unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (page 4 paragraph 4 - page 5 paragraph 1) as a computer/processor/tablet.
Regarding claim 1, “index value calculation unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (page 4 paragraph 4 - page 5 paragraph 1) as a computer/processor/tablet.
Regarding claim 3, “determination unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (page 4 paragraph 4 - page 5 paragraph 1) as a computer/processor/tablet.
Regarding claim 5, “display unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (page 5 paragraph 4) as an LCD display.
Regarding claim 7, “determination unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (page 4 paragraph 4 - page 5 paragraph 1) as a computer/processor/tablet.
Regarding claim 8, “angle calculation unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (page 4 paragraph 4 - page 5 paragraph 1) as a computer/processor/tablet.
Regarding claim 9, “program modification unit” will be interpreted under 112(f) because of the following three-prong analysis:
Prong 1: The claim uses the nonce term “unit”.
Prong 2: The claim uses functional language to modify the nonce term.
Prong 3: Sufficient structure for performing the function is not recited within the claim.
This limitation is being interpreted according to the specification (page 4 paragraph 4 - page 5 paragraph 1) as a computer/processor/tablet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
It does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter) or
Meets a three-prong test for determining that
The claim recites a judicial exception (such as: a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, an abstract idea)
Without integration into a practical application, and
Does not recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Is the claim directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter)?
Claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e. a machine). Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I – Is the claim directed to a judicial exception?
The judicial exceptions are as follows:
Abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity)
Laws of nature (e.g., naturally occurring correlations, scientific principles)
Natural phenomena (e.g., wind)
Products of nature (e.g., a plant found in the wild, minerals)
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the
follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human
activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can
be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Original) An information processing apparatus comprising:
an acceleration vector calculation unit configured to calculate, based on an operation program or operation information when a robot is actually operated in accordance with the operation program , a plurality of acceleration vectors corresponding to a plurality of time points during a period in which a reference position of the robot moves from a starting point to an ending point; and
an index value calculation unit configured to calculate, based on the plurality of acceleration vectors, a plurality of index values which serve as an index for evaluating a stress amplitude acting on the reference position.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing an operation program or the operation of a robot and calculating the acceleration at any point on the robot for different moments during the operation program/operation. This may be performed by a human in their mind or using a piece of paper and pen. The calculation of an index value to evaluating stress may also be performed this way. A human may mentally assign a value indicating higher stress at points which experience a high acceleration. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II – Does the claim, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application?
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
The guidelines provide the following (non-exhaustive) list of exemplary considerations which are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial element into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
An additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
An additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture which is integral to the claim;
An additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
The following is a (non-exhaustive) list of examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
An additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
An additional element adds insignificant extra-solutionary activity to the judicial exception;
An additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do
not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite additional limitations (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Original) An information processing apparatus comprising:
an acceleration vector calculation unit configured to calculate, based on an operation program or operation information when a robot is actually operated in accordance with the operation program , a plurality of acceleration vectors corresponding to a plurality of time points during a period in which a reference position of the robot moves from a starting point to an ending point; and
an index value calculation unit configured to calculate, based on the plurality of acceleration vectors, a plurality of index values which serve as an index for evaluating a stress amplitude acting on the reference position.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an information processing apparatus”, “an acceleration vector calculation unit”, and “an index value calculation unit” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (CPU) to perform the process. The “processing apparatus” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose robotic control environment. The processing apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculation steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B – Do the additional elements incorporate an inventive concept to the claim?
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding independent claim 1:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing apparatus to perform the calculating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “an information processing apparatus”, “an acceleration vector calculation unit”, and “an index value calculation unit” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “an information processing apparatus”, “an acceleration vector calculation unit”, and “an index value calculation unit” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processing apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, the independent claim 1 as well as the dependent claims are directed toward an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and do not comprise significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims and Conclusion
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim(s) 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Baar et al. (US 20220317659 A1), hereinafter van Baar in view of Tanno et al. (US 20190129381 A1), hereinafter Tanno.
Regarding claim 1, van Baar teaches:
1. (Original) An information processing apparatus comprising:
an acceleration vector calculation unit configured to calculate, (Paragraph 0003, "Some embodiments of the present invention are based on a recognition that a system can be provided for trajectories imitation for robotic manipulators. In this case, the system may include an interface configured to receive a plurality of task descriptions, wherein the interface is configured to communicate with a real-world robot; a memory to store computer-executable programs including a robot simulator, a training module and a transfer module; a processor, in connection with the memory, configured to: perform training using the training module, for the task descriptions on the robot simulator, to produce a plurality of source policy with subgoals for the task descriptions; and perform training using the training module, for the task descriptions on the real-world robot, to produce a plurality of target policy with subgoals for the task descriptions; and update parameters of the transfer module from corresponding trajectories with the subgoals for the robot simulator and real-world robot.") based on an operation program or operation information when a robot is actually operated in accordance with the operation program, (Paragraph 0035, "FIG. 5A shows a block diagram of a robot controller. In the preferred embodiment the robot controller 138 takes as input a task specification 106a, and a target policy with subgoals 106c. Alternatively, instead of a target policy with subgoals 106c, a trajectory 170, consisting of trajectory data points 310 and possible subgoals 320, may be given as input. A trajectory generator 510 generates a desired trajectory for the robot to follow. At time t=T the robot is in some final configuration as determined by the task goal in the task specification 106b. A control commands generator 520 takes as input the generated desired trajectory from the trajectory generator 510 and a robot state 260 and produces commands to send to the physical robot 195. An example of commands generated by 520 are torques to apply to the motors of the robot 195. The control commands generator generates commands for every time step in the generated desired trajectory from the trajectory generator 510. In another embodiment the trajectory generator may be separate from the robot controller 138. For example the trajectory generator may be stored as an executable program in the trajectories imitation system 100.") a plurality of acceleration vectors corresponding to a plurality of time points during a period in which a reference position of the robot moves from a starting point to an ending point; (Paragraph 0038, "The values at each time step t in q.sub.d(t) can be one or more scalar or vector values. An example of three scalar values at a time step t is (p(t),v(t),a(t)) which comprises of a position, velocity and acceleration in Cartesian space, for example for the end-effector. An example of vector values at a time step t is (q(t),q'(t),q''(t)) which denotes the angle, angular velocity and angular acceleration vectors for the joints, respectively. It is understood that different combinations and values can be obtained.") and
an index value calculation unit configured to calculate, (Paragraph 0003, "Some embodiments of the present invention are based on a recognition that a system can be provided for trajectories imitation for robotic manipulators. In this case, the system may include an interface configured to receive a plurality of task descriptions, wherein the interface is configured to communicate with a real-world robot; a memory to store computer-executable programs including a robot simulator, a training module and a transfer module; a processor, in connection with the memory, configured to: perform training using the training module, for the task descriptions on the robot simulator, to produce a plurality of source policy with subgoals for the task descriptions; and perform training using the training module, for the task descriptions on the real-world robot, to produce a plurality of target policy with subgoals for the task descriptions; and update parameters of the transfer module from corresponding trajectories with the subgoals for the robot simulator and real-world robot.") based on the plurality of acceleration vectors, (Paragraph 0038, "The values at each time step t in q.sub.d(t) can be one or more scalar or vector values. An example of three scalar values at a time step t is (p(t),v(t),a(t)) which comprises of a position, velocity and acceleration in Cartesian space, for example for the end-effector. An example of vector values at a time step t is (q(t),q'(t),q''(t)) which denotes the angle, angular velocity and angular acceleration vectors for the joints, respectively. It is understood that different combinations and values can be obtained.") …
Van Baar does not specifically discuss evaluating the stress at the position on the robot. However, Tanno, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
… a plurality of index values which serve as an index for evaluating a stress amplitude acting on the reference position. (Paragraph 0038, "The speed weighting factor K2(ω) is a factor indicating the magnitude of change of the twisting amount or the bending amount applied to the cable when the motor 50 which moves the joints of the robot 60 moves at a speed ω, and is varied in accordance with the speed ω (angular velocity) of the motor 50 which moves the joints of the robot 60. In general, a cable wired across the joint of the robot 60 tends to become fatigued more as the magnitude of change of the twisting amount or the bending amount applied to that cable per unit time is increased. Thus, the speed weighting factor K2(ω) is defined so as to indicate a higher value as the speed ω (angular velocity) of the motor 50 which moves the joints of the robot 60 is increased, and thus defined speed weighting factor K2(ω) is used, thereby allowing estimation of a fatigue level with higher accuracy. As with the position weighting factor K1(θ), the speed weighting factor K2(ω) may be set as a function which returns a stepwise value with respect to the speed ω of the motor 50, or may be set as a function which returns a successively changing value with respect to the speed ω of the motor 50.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system and operating methods as taught by van Baar with the ability to evaluate stresses as taught by Tanno. This would allow the system to carefully monitor the state of the joints and ensure that proper maintenance is performed before faults occur.
Regarding claim 7, where all the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, van Baar further teaches:
7. (Original) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a determination unit (Paragraph 0003, "Some embodiments of the present invention are based on a recognition that a system can be provided for trajectories imitation for robotic manipulators. In this case, the system may include an interface configured to receive a plurality of task descriptions, wherein the interface is configured to communicate with a real-world robot; a memory to store computer-executable programs including a robot simulator, a training module and a transfer module; a processor, in connection with the memory, configured to: perform training using the training module, for the task descriptions on the robot simulator, to produce a plurality of source policy with subgoals for the task descriptions; and perform training using the training module, for the task descriptions on the real-world robot, to produce a plurality of target policy with subgoals for the task descriptions; and update parameters of the transfer module from corresponding trajectories with the subgoals for the robot simulator and real-world robot.") configured to …
Van Baar does not specifically teach predicting a fracture in the robot based on the determined stresses. However, Tanno, in the same field of endeavor of robotics, teaches:
determine a possibility of fatigue fracture occurring at the reference position (Paragraph 0002, "In an articulated robot, as depicted in FIG. 8, it is required to wire a motor cable for moving each joint, a cable for driving a device attached to the robot, a signal cable to an encoder, and so forth over joint parts. These cables become fatigued by being bent or twisted with operation of each joint of the robot. With the progress of fatigue, a trouble such as a break occurs in a cable, which may lead to a halt of the robot. Therefore, it is important to predict the life of each cable and replace the cable at an appropriate time.") based on the plurality of index values. (Paragraph 0038, "The speed weighting factor K2(ω) is a factor indicating the magnitude of change of the twisting amount or the bending amount applied to the cable when the motor 50 which moves the joints of the robot 60 moves at a speed ω, and is varied in accordance with the speed ω (angular velocity) of the motor 50 which moves the joints of the robot 60. In general, a cable wired across the joint of the robot 60 tends to become fatigued more as the magnitude of change of the twisting amount or the bending amount applied to that cable per unit time is increased. Thus, the speed weighting factor K2(ω) is defined so as to indicate a higher value as the speed ω (angular velocity) of the motor 50 which moves the joints of the robot 60 is increased, and thus defined speed weighting factor K2(ω) is used, thereby allowing estimation of a fatigue level with higher accuracy. As with the position weighting factor K1(θ), the speed weighting factor K2(ω) may be set as a function which returns a stepwise value with respect to the speed ω of the motor 50, or may be set as a function which returns a successively changing value with respect to the speed ω of the motor 50.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the robotic system and operating methods as taught by van Baar with the ability to predict possible failures based on the evaluated stresses as taught by Tanno. This would allow the system to carefully monitor the state of the joints and ensure that proper maintenance is performed before faults occur.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the referencesapplied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations arerepresentative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER KENIRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5468. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/H.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657