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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the application filed 04/13/2026. Claim 1, 4-12, and 16 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/13/2026, regarding the rejection of the claim language in view of Hall et al. US 20200306981 A1 (“Hall”) in combination with Tokuoka US 20210129331 A1 (“Tokuoka”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the elements of the amended independent claims, including the new claim 16, in particular the elements that the examiner previously relied upon Tokuoka to disclose. In particular, applicant argues that Tokuoka merely describes that the operator is allowed to designate work points (positions to be captured by the imaging device) and constraints about the pose of the hand at each work point. Applicant states that in contrast, according to at least one embodiment according to claim 1, the first information processing device is a programming device including the first processor further configured to accept a user operation of designating a work target part of the workpiece model based on a shape feature of the workpiece extracted from the workpiece model, and generate the robot program for performing work with respect to the designated work target part. However, the Applicant fails to explain how designating work points (positions to be captured by the imaging device) is different from designating a work target part of the workpiece model based on a shape feature of the workpiece extracted from the workpiece model. Mere assertion that the two are different does not clarify how they are different, and even if the embodiment the applicant describes is significantly different from the prior art, these differences appear to be unclaimed in the amended list of claims. For these reasons, the claims are still rejected in view of the prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. US 20200306981 A1 (“Hall”) in combination with Tokuoka US 20210129331 A1 (“Tokuoka”).
Regarding Claim 1. Hall teaches a robot programming system comprising:
a first information processing device including a first processor configured to convert a robot program into a code;
a visual sensor configured to capture an image of the code displayed on an information medium (Robotic arms shown in FIG. 1 communicate with a controller at 20. The arm at 14 has a QR code attachment device and code reader at 22 for reading QR codes at 12, shown in more detail in FIG. 2. In this embodiment, the construction elements 10 are tagged with QR codes 12 by the QR code attachment device and QR code reader 22. The QR codes are read by the QR code attachment device and QR code reader 22. The controller 20 receives input from the code reader 22 and provides instructions to the robotic arms 16 and 18. The robotic arms use these instructions to manipulate the construction elements 10 into position and to weld them together as per the instructions [paragraph 24]); and
a robot control device configured to control a robot, the robot control device comprising:
a second processor configured to analyze the captured image of the code so as to restore the robot program (According to FIG. 5, after reading the machine readable code at 503, instructions are provided to the device based on the machine readable code at 504, and the construction elements are manipulated based on the instructions. As best can be understood, this means that the robot controller restores the robot program from the code in step 503, provides the instructions to the device in step 504, and manipulates the construction element in step 505, which is a duplication of the robot program in the form of performing the program. This would not be possible without storing the program somewhere with the controller, and duplicating the program for use by the manipulator arms), and
convert the robot program created by the teaching into a code including information about a command sentence, a motion sentence, and a teaching position of the robot program (This is implied; the QR codes of Hall must contain the information for motion command somehow. For example, in paragraph 31, FIG. 4 including a QR code etcher etching a QR code into an I-beam with a laser and as disclosed in FIG. 5, the system of Hall is capable of gathering the robot program from the QR code, including manipulating the construction element with the device based on the instructions at 505, which necessarily includes motion and position commands).
Hall does not explicitly teach duplicate the restored robot program, and store the duplicated robot program in a storage unit after the robot program is duplicated and restored. However, one understands that this is well known in the art to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The QR codes give instantaneous instructions on what the robot should do. If the task were to be repeated, it is known in the art that simply programming the robot to repeat the process to build an identical cube would be faster than having the robot take the time to read the QR code with each iteration of construction.
Hall does not teach:
wherein the first information processing device is a programming device including the first processor further configured to:
arrange, on a virtual space, a robot system model that three-dimensionally expresses a robot system including the robot and includes a robot model;
accept a user operation of designating a work target part of the workpiece model based on a shape feature of the workpiece extracted from the workpiece model,
generate the robot program for performing work with respect to the designated work target part, and
convert the generated robot program into the code including information about a command sentence, a motion sentence, and a teaching position of the robot program.
However, Tokuoka teaches:
wherein the first information processing device is a programming device including the first processor further configured to:
arrange, on a virtual space, a robot system model that three-dimensionally expresses a robot system including the robot and includes a robot model (FIG. 3, paragraph 41);
accept a user operation of designating a work target part of the workpiece model based on a shape feature of the workpiece extracted from the workpiece model (The control device in FIG. 1 at 400 is provided with an external input device at 500, which can be a teaching pendant, and is used for an operator to specify a position and orientation of the robot arm main body [paragraph 25]),
generate the robot program for performing work with respect to the designated work target part (paragraph 25), and
convert the generated robot program into the code including information about a command sentence, a motion sentence, and a teaching position of the robot program (paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Hall with wherein the first information processing device is a programming device including the first processor further configured to: arrange, on a virtual space, a robot system model that three-dimensionally expresses a robot system including the robot and includes a robot model; accept a user operation of designating a work target part of the workpiece model based on a shape feature of the workpiece extracted from the workpiece model, generate the robot program for performing work with respect to the designated work target part, and convert the generated robot program into the code including information about a command sentence, a motion sentence, and a teaching position of the robot program as taught by Tokuoka so as to allow a user to observe a model of the robot program and provide input to adjust the program as needed.
Regarding Claim 7. Hall in combination with Tokuoka teaches the robot programming system according to claim 1.
Hall also teaches:
wherein the information medium on which the code is displayed is a paper medium (In FIG. 2, in one embodiment, the QR code can be affixed to a construction element with a code sticker at 34 of FIG. 2 [paragraph 26]).
Regarding Claim 8. Hall in combination with Tokuoka teaches the robot programming system according to claim 1.
Hall also teaches:
wherein
the first processor of the first information processing device is further configured to:
divide the robot program into a plurality of robot programs (In FIG. 2, three separate robotic arms are shown at 14, 16, and 18 in communication with a controller at 20 [paragraph 24]. The controller is responsible for providing instructions to the robots based on the QR codes as described in FIG. 5), and
generate a plurality of codes respectively corresponding to the plurality of divided robot programs (If a variety of codes can be printed on different construction elements as shown in FIG. 2, with different instructions to assemble the structure shown in the same figure, and the robotic arms attach the construction element to other construction elements, as per the instructions from the different machine-readable codes of the different construction elements [paragraph 30], then the device that prints the codes must generate a plurality of codes respectively corresponding to the plurality of divided robot programs), wherein
the visual sensor is configured to capture a further image of the plurality of codes (the code reader described in FIG. 5, step 503), and
the second processor is configured to restore an entirety of the robot program from the captured further image of the plurality of codes (step 504 of FIG. 5).
Regarding Claim 10. Hall in combination with Tokuoka teaches the robot programming system according to claim 1.
Hall also teaches:
wherein the information medium on which the code is displayed is a medium on which the code is printed and is attached to a predetermined position on the workpiece (In FIG. 2, in one embodiment, the QR code can be affixed to a construction element with a code sticker at 34 of FIG. 2 [paragraph 26]).
Regarding Claim 11. Hall in combination with Tokuoka teaches the robot programming system according to claim 1.
Hall also teaches:
wherein the second processor of the robot control device is further configured to execute the duplicated robot program (The controller 20 receives input from the code reader 22 and provides instructions to the robotic arms 16 and 18. The robotic arms use these instructions to manipulate the construction elements 10 into position and to weld them together as per the instructions [paragraph 24]).
Hall does not explicitly teach:
delete the duplicated robot program stored in the storage unit after execution of the duplicated robot program with respect to the workpiece is finished.
However, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the robot is intended to assemble a different structure, either with different elements or in a different arrangement, and it is well-known in the art to delete an outdated instruction once it can no longer be used due to changes in the workpieces the robot works with.
Regarding Claim 12. Hall in combination with Tokuoka teaches the robot programming system according to claim 1.
Hall also teaches:
wherein
the second processor of the robot control device is further configured to execute the duplicated robot program (The controller 20 receives input from the code reader 22 and provides instructions to the robotic arms 16 and 18. The robotic arms use these instructions to manipulate the construction elements 10 into position and to weld them together as per the instructions [paragraph 24]),
the code includes information about a number of workpieces for which the robot program needs to be executed (Information about how to assemble the construction elements is therefore found on the construction elements. In a preferred embodiment, the machine-readable code becomes a new origin for the robotic assembler to work from. Once the construction elements are manipulated, such as welding them together, the instructions direct the code reader where to find the next machine-readable code on the construction elements. The next machine-readable code thereby becomes the next new origin, and new construction elements are thereby connected [paragraph 18], which reads on including information about a number of workpieces for which the robot program needs to be executed).
Hall does not explicitly teach:
the second processor is further configured to delete the robot program stored in the storage unit after the second processor repeatedly executes the robot program by the number of workpieces.
However, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the robot is intended to assemble a different structure, either with different elements or in a different arrangement, and it is well-known in the art to delete an outdated instruction once it can no longer be used due to changes in the workpieces the robot works with.
Regarding Claim 16. Hall teaches an information processing device configured to generate a robot program of a robot, the information processing device comprising:
a processor configured to:
output the code, wherein
the processor is further configured to
divide the robot program into a plurality of robot programs based on an amount of information regarding the teaching position in the robot program (In FIG. 2, three separate robotic arms are shown at 14, 16, and 18 in communication with a controller at 20 [paragraph 24]. The controller is responsible for providing instructions to the robots based on the QR codes as described in FIG. 5),
convert the plurality of robot programs into a plurality of codes, respectively, wherein each of the plurality of codes includes information about a command sentence, a motion sentence, and a teaching position of a corresponding robot program of the plurality of robot programs (This is implied; the QR codes of Hall must contain the information for motion command somehow. For example, in paragraph 31, FIG. 4 including a QR code etcher etching a QR code into an I-beam with a laser and as disclosed in FIG. 5, the system of Hall is capable of gathering the robot program from the QR code, including manipulating the construction element with the device based on the instructions at 505, which necessarily includes motion and position commands), and
output each of the plurality of codes (FIG. 5, step 505).
Hall does not teach:
a processor configured to:
arrange, on a virtual space, a robot system model including a robot model that three- dimensionally expresses the robot,
perform teaching to the robot system model based on a user input,
convert the robot program generated by the teaching into a code including information about a command sentence a motion sentence, and a teaching position of the robot program.
However, Tokuoka teaches:
a processor configured to:
arrange, on a virtual space, a robot system model including a robot model that three- dimensionally expresses the robot (FIG. 3, paragraph 41),
perform teaching to the robot system model based on a user input (paragraph 25),
convert the robot program generated by the teaching into a code including information about a command sentence a motion sentence, and a teaching position of the robot program (paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Hall with a processor configured to: arrange, on a virtual space, a robot system model including a robot model that three- dimensionally expresses the robot, perform teaching to the robot system model based on a user input, convert the robot program generated by the teaching into a code including information about a command sentence a motion sentence, and a teaching position of the robot program as taught by Tokuoka so as to allow a user to observe a model of the robot program and provide input to adjust the program as needed.
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. US 20200306981 A1 (“Hall”) in combination with Tokuoka US 20210129331 A1 (“Tokuoka”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gong et al. US 20150134115 A1 (“Gong”).
Regarding Claim 4. Hall in combination with Tokuoka teaches the robot programming system according to claim 1.
Hall does not teach:
wherein the information medium on which the code is displayed is a display screen of a second information processing device.
However, Gong teaches:
wherein the information medium on which the code is displayed is a display screen of a second information processing device (A user can provide commands to a mobile robot using a computing device that generates a glyph containing the command and displays the glyph on a display device of the computing device. In some implementations, the computing device 200 transmits the command to a service provider 110, which in turn generates the glyph 202 and transmits the glyph to the computing device 200. The mobile robot 300 captures image data (e.g. a digital photograph) that includes the glyph 202, decodes the glyph 202 to determine the command, and issues a command to one of its resources or components. As used herein, the term glyph 202 can refer to any image that is capable of storing data, including but not limited to barcodes and matrix barcodes. A matrix barcode is a two-dimensional bar code. Matrix bar codes can include quick-response codes ("QR-codes"). The foregoing framework departs from traditional use of QR-codes, which are usually displayed on advertisements or other static mediums and meant to be captured by mobile computing devices (e.g., smartphones 200b and tablets 200a) [paragraph 24]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Hall with wherein the information medium on which the code is displayed is a display screen of a second information processing device as taught by Gong so as to allow a changeable display screen to communicate the code to the robot and update a new code when a new program is required.
Regarding Claim 5. Hall in combination with Tokouka and Gong teaches the robot programming system according to claim 4.
Hall does not teach:
wherein the first information processing device transfers the code to the second information processing device by an e-mail function.
However, while not explicit, Gong teaches that the bar code can be transferred by smartphone or other mobile computing device to a display device of the computing device [paragraph 24]. E-mail is a common method in the art for transferring such data, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Hall in combination with Gong with wherein the first information processing device transfers the code to the second information processing device by an e-mail function as this would merely be an application of a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6. Hall in combination with Tokuoka teaches the robot programming system according to claim 1.
Hall does not teach:
wherein the information medium on which the code is displayed is a display screen of the first information processing device.
However, Gong teaches:
wherein the information medium on which the code is displayed is a display screen of the first information processing device (The computing device used to display the glyph to the robot can be the user device (smartphone or tablet) [paragraph 42]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Hall with wherein the information medium on which the code is displayed is a display screen of the first information processing device as taught by Gong so as to allow a changeable display screen to communicate the code to the robot and update a new code when a new program is required.
Conclusion
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 AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights