DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 have been amended. Claims 1-5 are now pending.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection and interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the previously mailed office action.
National Stage
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/JP2022/007880 filed 02/25/2022. As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims is the filing date of that PCT application, 02/25/2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections set forth in the previously mailed office action have been considered but are moot because amendments to the claim language have necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20180029230 A1), hereinafter Takahashi in view of Motomura (US 20170296935 A1), hereinafter Motomura.
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses:
A robot control device comprising:
a processor configured to:
obtain, from an enable apparatus, an operation state including a first operation state indicating that operation of a robot is not permitted and a second operation state indicating that operation of the robot is permitted (see at least [0075-0076]: “As a result of the monitoring processing, the control portion 8 judges whether the monitoring results indicate the alert-cancelled state, the alert state, or the operation-restricted state (steps S5, S6, S7, and S8). In the case in which it is judged that the monitoring results indicate the alert-cancelled state, the worker 2 can freely enter the third space R3, and the alert state is established at the moment the worker 2 enters the third space R3. Even after the alert state is established, the robot 3 can be operated without restriction so long as the robot 3 does not enter the third space R3. When the robot 3 enters the third space R3 in the state in which the worker 2 is in the third space R3, the operation-restricted state is established, and thus, the operation of the robot 3 is restricted.”)
and perform cancellation processing to cancel the first alarm in a case where it is determined that the enable apparatus is in the second operation state and that the second alarm has not been set (see at least [0083]: “Once the alert state is established, switching to the alert-cancelled state is not performed unless the flag F2 or the flag F3, which indicates crossing of one of the monitoring boundaries A and B, thus causing the alert state to be established, and the flag F1, which indicates the presence of an object in the third space R3 are both substantially simultaneously switched from “ON” to “OFF”.”)
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, but Motomura, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
stop an action of the robot and set a first alarm in a case where the first operation state has been obtained, and stop an action of the robot and set a second alarm in a case where an abnormality that is not based on the first operation state has been detected (see at least [0057]: “ notification control device 2 of Embodiment 2 differs from the notification control device 1 of Embodiment 1 in that in a case where (i) a second notification event has occurred after a first notification event occurred (note that to each notification event a corresponding priority is set in accordance with a degree that a user necessitates to address) and (ii) the second notification event has a priority higher than that of the first notification event, the notification posture transition determining section 14 of Embodiment 2 determines whether a robot 200 will be able to undergo a transition to a second notification posture associated with the second notification event. The first notification event is a notification event that occurred first, and the second notification event is a notification event that has occurred after the first notification event occurred. A first notification posture is a notification posture associated with the first notification event, and the second notification posture is a notification posture associated with the second notification event.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Takahashi with the method of handling multiple alarms because the invention of Takahashi is directed to ensuring that a user is made aware of the event for which the alarm occurs. As stated in Takahashi [0006], Advantageous Effects of Invention: “An aspect of the present invention allows the user to certainly recognize occurrence of a notification event.”
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Takahashi and Motomura teaches:
The robot control device according to claim 1.
The robot control device according to claim 1, wherein the enable apparatus includes a plurality of enable apparatuses, and the processor obtains the operation states from the plurality of enable apparatuses, and performs the cancellation processing when the operation state of at least one of the plurality of enable apparatuses has become the second operation state. (see at least Fig. 6.)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Takahashi and Motomura teaches:
The robot control device according to claim 1.
Takahashi further discloses wherein the enable apparatus includes a plurality of enable apparatuses, and the processor obtains the operation state of the enable apparatus selected from the plurality of enable apparatuses, and performs the cancellation processing when the operation state of the enable apparatus selected from the plurality of enable apparatuses has become the second operation state (see at least Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takahashi and Motomura teaches:
The robot control device according to claim 1.
Takahashi further discloses wherein the enable apparatus includes a plurality of enable apparatuses, and the processor obtains the operation states from the plurality of enable apparatuses, and performs the cancellation processing when the operation states of all of the plurality of enable apparatuses have become the second operation state (see at least Fig. 6.)
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses:
A robot system comprising:
A robot system comprising:
an enable apparatus that transmits an operation state including a first operation state indicating that operation of a robot is not permitted and a second operation state indicating that operation of the robot is permitted and a robot control device to which the robot and the enable apparatus are connected, wherein the robot control device includes a processor configured to obtain the operation state from the enable apparatus, stop an action of the robot and set a first alarm in a case where the first operation state has been obtained (see at least [0075-0076]: “As a result of the monitoring processing, the control portion 8 judges whether the monitoring results indicate the alert-cancelled state, the alert state, or the operation-restricted state (steps S5, S6, S7, and S8). In the case in which it is judged that the monitoring results indicate the alert-cancelled state, the worker 2 can freely enter the third space R3, and the alert state is established at the moment the worker 2 enters the third space R3. Even after the alert state is established, the robot 3 can be operated without restriction so long as the robot 3 does not enter the third space R3. When the robot 3 enters the third space R3 in the state in which the worker 2 is in the third space R3, the operation-restricted state is established, and thus, the operation of the robot 3 is restricted.”)
and perform cancellation processing to cancel the first alarm, in a case where it is determined that the enable apparatus is in the second operation state and that the second alarm has not been set with the alarm having been set, performs, when the only alarm that has been set is the alarm based on the operation state, cancellation processing for cancelling the alarm that has been set (see at least [0083]: “Once the alert state is established, switching to the alert-cancelled state is not performed unless the flag F2 or the flag F3, which indicates crossing of one of the monitoring boundaries A and B, thus causing the alert state to be established, and the flag F1, which indicates the presence of an object in the third space R3 are both substantially simultaneously switched from “ON” to “OFF”.”)
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, but Motomura, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: stop an action of the robot and set a second alarm in a case where an abnormality that is not based on the first operation state has been detected (see at least [0057]: “ notification control device 2 of Embodiment 2 differs from the notification control device 1 of Embodiment 1 in that in a case where (i) a second notification event has occurred after a first notification event occurred (note that to each notification event a corresponding priority is set in accordance with a degree that a user necessitates to address) and (ii) the second notification event has a priority higher than that of the first notification event, the notification posture transition determining section 14 of Embodiment 2 determines whether a robot 200 will be able to undergo a transition to a second notification posture associated with the second notification event. The first notification event is a notification event that occurred first, and the second notification event is a notification event that has occurred after the first notification event occurred. A first notification posture is a notification posture associated with the first notification event, and the second notification posture is a notification posture associated with the second notification event.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Takahashi with the method of handling multiple alarms because the invention of Takahashi is directed to ensuring that a user is made aware of the event for which the alarm occurs. As stated in Takahashi [0006], Advantageous Effects of Invention: “An aspect of the present invention allows the user to certainly recognize occurrence of a notification event.”
Conclusion
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 ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658