DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1 is pending; claims 2-13 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/847023, in view of Ooba et al. (US 2021/0154844 A1).
Regarding claim 1 of the present invention, claim 1 of copending Application ‘7023 teaches every claimed limitation except: determining a distance between a computer-implemented model of the robot and the environment model; wherein in this visualization a warning is issued if the distance determined for this portion falls within a predefined warning range, and an all-clear is issued if the distance determined for this portion falls within a predetermined all-clear range.
However, Ooba teaches determining a distance between a computer-implemented model of the robot and the environment model ([0025] “The interference detection section 15 is capable of detecting the presence or absence of the interference of the virtual robot 23 with the peripheral device 22 using a known interference detection method. For example, the interference detection section 15 may project a convex polyhedron having a simplified shape of the peripheral device 22 and a convex polyhedron having a simplified shape of the virtual robot 23 onto the XYZ planes, determine the intersection of the two convex polyhedrons formed by the projection using a known plane scanning method, and when intersection is detected in all of the XYZ planes, determine that there is interference.” – The detection of interference of the two convex polyhedrons is understood to be determined by monitoring the distance between the two convex polyhedrons); wherein in this visualization a warning is issued if the distance determined for this portion falls within a predefined warning range, and an all-clear is issued if the distance determined for this portion falls within a predetermined all-clear range ([0026] “The simulation device 10 may further comprise a color changing section 16 which changes the color of the virtual robot 23 when the interference is detected. For example, the color changing section 16 changes the color of the virtual robot 23 to red, and the augmented reality display section 12 displays the virtual robot 23 for which the color has been changed to red overlaid on the image. As a result, the presence or absence of the interference of the actual robot 20 with the peripheral device 22 can be easily visually understood.” – The predefined warning range corresponds with when interference is detected, i.e. distance is less than 0, while the all-clear range corresponds with when no interference is detected, i.e. distance is greater than 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of copending Application ‘7023 to determine a distance between a computer-implemented model of the robot and the environment model, wherein in this visualization a warning is issued if the distance determined for this portion falls within a predefined warning range, and an all-clear is issued if the distance determined for this portion falls within a predetermined all-clear range, as taught by Ooba, in order to allow an operator to visually understand when the actual robot collides with a peripheral device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1: “robot (1), comprising” should be changed to read “robot (1), the method comprising”.
Claim 1 line 8: “the convex envelope of the track” should be changed to read “the convex envelope of the one portion of the track”.
Claim 1 line 10 and line 11: “a portion of the track” should be changed to read “the one portion of the track”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumiya et al. (US 2012/0265342 A1), in view of Ooba et al. (US 2021/0154844 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kumiya teaches:
A method for checking a predefined track of a robot (1) (Abstract “A method and an apparatus for predicting interference, at practical accuracy and calculation time, between a target section of a robot and a peripheral object installed around the robot, when the target section, such as a tool or a sensor attached to a robot hand, is moved along a movement path thereof due to the motion of the robot.”), comprising the steps of:
determining (S20) or providing a computer-implemented three-dimensional environment model ([0015] “calculating the peripheral occupied area as a combination of convex polyhedrons; [0028] “container box 4 is approximated by an area
D
2
corresponding to a polyhedron constituted by removing a rectangular parallelepiped from another rectangular parallelepiped which is slightly larger than the former rectangular parallelepiped.”)
determining (S30) a convex envelope for at least one portion of the track ([0015] “calculating all convex hulls which are combinations of adjacent target section occupied areas when the plurality of target section occupied areas are aligned according to the order of the plurality of time points”);
determining an intersection of the convex envelope with the environment model ([0015] “judging whether the interference between the target section of the robot and the peripheral object occurs, by judging whether a common area exists between any of the convex hulls and the convex polyhedrons.”; Fig. 9; [0053] “As shown, there is a common area between convex hull
C
3
and polyhedron area
D
2
, wherein convex hull
C
3
includes two areas occupied by tool 3 at time points
T
2
and
T
3
. Therefore, on the movement path of FIG. 5, it is predicted or judged that tool 3 interferes with container box 4.).
Kumiya does not specifically teach visualizing (S40) a virtual representation of the convex envelope of the track using a visualization device (2; 3) in an augmented reality for checking the track, wherein in this visualization a warning is issued for a portion of the track if at least one intersection exists and an all-clear is issued for a portion of the track if no intersection exists for this portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ooba teaches a method comprising a step of:
visualizing (S40) a virtual representation of the convex envelope ([0025] “a convex polyhedron having a simplified shape of the virtual robot 23 onto the XYZ planes,”) using a visualization device (2; 3) in an augmented reality (Fig. 1; [0019] “The simulation device 10 comprises an augmented reality display section 12”; [0020] “The augmented reality display device 12 of the present example captures an image in which an actual robot 20 and a peripheral device 22 arranged at the periphery of the actual robot 20 are shown, and displays a virtual robot 23 overlaid on the actual robot 20 shown in the captured image.”), wherein in this visualization a warning is issued if at least one intersection exists ([0026] “The simulation device 10 may further comprise a color changing section 16 which changes the color of the virtual robot 23 when the interference is detected. For example, the color changing section 16 changes the color of the virtual robot 23 to red, and the augmented reality display section 12 displays the virtual robot 23 for which the color has been changed to red overlaid on the image.”) and an all-clear is issued if no intersection exists for this portion ([0026] “The simulation device 10 may further comprise a color changing section 16 which changes the color of the virtual robot 23 when the interference is detected. For example, the color changing section 16 changes the color of the virtual robot 23 to red, and the augmented reality display section 12 displays the virtual robot 23 for which the color has been changed to red overlaid on the image. As a result, the presence or absence of the interference of the actual robot 20 with the peripheral device 22 can be easily visually understood.” – Color of the virtual robot not changing to red indicates no intersection exists).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumiya to visualize (S40) a virtual representation of the convex envelope using a visualization device (2; 3) in an augmented reality, wherein in this visualization a warning is issued if at least one intersection exists and an all-clear is issued if no intersection exists for this portion, as taught by Ooba, wherein the convex envelope includes a portion of the track of the robot as taught by Kumiya. Such modification allows an operator to visually understand the presence or absence of the interference of the actual robot with a peripheral device, as stated by Ooba in [0026].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maier et al. (US 12,194,630 B2) teaches controlling an industrial robot provides that position data of the industrial robot are detected and environment data of an object in an environment of the industrial robot are captured with an environment detection unit.
Powers et al. (US 2021/0225082 A1) teaches generating point data including a set of safe points in a space and a set of unsafe points in the space, the space surrounding a user device of the system, generating a triangulation over a union of the set of safe points and the set of unsafe points, determining triangles of the triangulation that include at least one safe point and determining edges of determined triangles which are part of a single triangle that include at least one safe point.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/NHI Q BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3656