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.
National Stage
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/JP2022/017766 filed 04/14/2022. As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims is the filing date of that PCT application, 04/14/2022.
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 amended claims filed 05/13/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claims 7-10 have been canceled. Claim 11 has been newly added. Claims 1-6 and 11 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously filed 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because applicant’s amendments to the claim language have necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karri et al. (US 20230051995 A1), hereinafter Karri, in view of Hayashi et al. (US 20220234199 A1), hereinafter Hayashi.
Regarding claim 1, Karri discloses:
A controller comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor (see at least [0009]: “…control apparatus including a controller that includes a processor and a memory that stores instructions…”)
configured to execute the instructions to:
set a condition for a face of a target object according to an expression indicating a direction in which the target object is grasped and a direction in which a posture of the target object is defined, the condition being included in constraint conditions for deciding the posture of the target object and a movement path of the target object and related to a grasp of the target object, release of the grasp of the target object, or a switching of the target object from one robot arm to another robot arm (see at least [0033]: “As shown in FIGS. 2A-2B, a first robotic gripper can be used to support a base of the object. The second robotic gripper is not being used. Upon determination that a portion of the object cannot be accessed by the printing heads (as described later), the second robotic gripper supports the object from a different location (e.g., in this case, provides a hanging support) such that printing can occur in the area that the prior support by the first robotic gripper was obscuring. In other words, while the object is being printed, another robotic gripper can grip the object from a different direction/angle etc. and/or grip the object from a different position of the object.”)
and control at least one of a first robot hand or a second robot hand so that the target object is grasped, the grasp of the target object is released, or the target object is switched from one robot arm to another robot arm using the face decided based on the condition (see at least [0033]: “As shown in FIGS. 2A-2B, a first robotic gripper can be used to support a base of the object. The second robotic gripper is not being used. Upon determination that a portion of the object cannot be accessed by the printing heads (as described later), the second robotic gripper supports the object from a different location (e.g., in this case, provides a hanging support) such that printing can occur in the area that the prior support by the first robotic gripper was obscuring. In other words, while the object is being printed, another robotic gripper can grip the object from a different direction/angle etc. and/or grip the object from a different position of the object.”)
Karri does not explicitly disclose, but Hayashi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
an expression using indicating a product of norms of outer products using outer products that are a calculation operation for an angle formed by a vector indicating a direction in which the target object is grasped and a direction in which a vector indicating an axis for defining a posture of the target object (see at least [0092]: “The calculation method shown in the present embodiment can be applied as calculation of any arm angle α in forward kinematics and inverse kinematics, and can adapt to various design specifications of the link actuation apparatus. Though an angle is used in these expressions, an expression using an arc length instead of the angle may be used because an arc length of a unit sphere is equal to a central angle formed by two certain straight lines in the unit sphere. Since a term in a sine or cosine function is considered at the unit spherical surface, load imposed by calculation processing can also be lessened by using, for example, a norm of an inner or outer product of vector P or A.sub.0.”)
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 Karri with the method of calculation as taught by Hayashi. This is because, as stated by Hayashi [0091]: “Therefore, repetitive operations are not required and the current position of the tip end can quickly be known or arm rotation angle β can quickly be calculated. Since arm rotation angle β not including an approximation error is calculated, by rotating all drive sources for attitude control in the same direction to apply constant torque, accuracy in constant torque load control for suppressing wobble due to mechanical play is enhanced and accuracy in positioning can be improved.”
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Karri and Hayashi teaches:
The controller according to claim 1.
Karri further discloses:
A robot system comprising: a first robot hand; a second robot hand; and the controller according to claim 1 (see at least [0007]: “In an exemplary embodiment, the present invention can provide a computer-implemented dynamic supporting base creation method that interacts with a three-dimensional (3D) printer that prints an object, the method including providing a physical support, via a first robotic gripper, for an object during three-dimensional (3D) printing using a printing head of the 3D printer and transferring the object to a second robotic gripper to provide a physical support at a different location on the object.”)
Regarding claim 6, Karri discloses:
A control method comprising:
setting a condition for a face of a target object according to an expression using a direction in which the target object is grasped and a direction in which a posture of the target object is defined, the condition being, included in constraint conditions for deciding the posture of the target object and a movement path of the target object and related to a grasp of the target object, release of the grasp of the target object, or a switching of the target object from one robot arm to another robot arm (see at least [0033]: “As shown in FIGS. 2A-2B, a first robotic gripper can be used to support a base of the object. The second robotic gripper is not being used. Upon determination that a portion of the object cannot be accessed by the printing heads (as described later), the second robotic gripper supports the object from a different location (e.g., in this case, provides a hanging support) such that printing can occur in the area that the prior support by the first robotic gripper was obscuring. In other words, while the object is being printed, another robotic gripper can grip the object from a different direction/angle etc. and/or grip the object from a different position of the object.”)
and controlling at least one of a first robot hand or and a second robot hand so that the target object is grasped, the grasp of the target object is released, or the target object is switched from one robot arm to another robot arm using the face decided based on the set condition (see at least [0033]: “As shown in FIGS. 2A-2B, a first robotic gripper can be used to support a base of the object. The second robotic gripper is not being used. Upon determination that a portion of the object cannot be accessed by the printing heads (as described later), the second robotic gripper supports the object from a different location (e.g., in this case, provides a hanging support) such that printing can occur in the area that the prior support by the first robotic gripper was obscuring. In other words, while the object is being printed, another robotic gripper can grip the object from a different direction/angle etc. and/or grip the object from a different position of the object.”)
Karri does not explicitly disclose, but Hayashi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
setting a condition for a face of a target object according to an expression indicating a product of norms of outer products using outer products that are a calculation operation for an angle formed by a vector indicating the target object is grasped and a direction in which a vector indicating an axis for defining a posture of the target object (see at least [0092]: “The calculation method shown in the present embodiment can be applied as calculation of any arm angle α in forward kinematics and inverse kinematics, and can adapt to various design specifications of the link actuation apparatus. Though an angle is used in these expressions, an expression using an arc length instead of the angle may be used because an arc length of a unit sphere is equal to a central angle formed by two certain straight lines in the unit sphere. Since a term in a sine or cosine function is considered at the unit spherical surface, load imposed by calculation processing can also be lessened by using, for example, a norm of an inner or outer product of vector P or A.sub.0.”)
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 Karri with the method of calculation as taught by Hayashi. This is because, as stated by Hayashi [0091]: “Therefore, repetitive operations are not required and the current position of the tip end can quickly be known or arm rotation angle β can quickly be calculated. Since arm rotation angle β not including an approximation error is calculated, by rotating all drive sources for attitude control in the same direction to apply constant torque, accuracy in constant torque load control for suppressing wobble due to mechanical play is enhanced and accuracy in positioning can be improved.”
Regarding claim 11, Karri discloses:
A non-transitory recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to:
set a condition for a face of a target object according to an expression using a direction in which the target object is grasped and a direction in which a posture of the target object is defined, the condition being, included in constraint conditions for deciding the posture of the target object and a movement path of the target object and related to a grasp of the target object, release of the grasp of the target object, or a switching of the target object from one robot arm to another robot arm (see at least [0033]: “As shown in FIGS. 2A-2B, a first robotic gripper can be used to support a base of the object. The second robotic gripper is not being used. Upon determination that a portion of the object cannot be accessed by the printing heads (as described later), the second robotic gripper supports the object from a different location (e.g., in this case, provides a hanging support) such that printing can occur in the area that the prior support by the first robotic gripper was obscuring. In other words, while the object is being printed, another robotic gripper can grip the object from a different direction/angle etc. and/or grip the object from a different position of the object.”)
and control at least one of a first robot hand or and a second robot hand so that the target object is grasped, the grasp of the target object is released, or the target object is switched from one robot arm to another robot arm using the face decided based on the set condition (see at least [0033]: “As shown in FIGS. 2A-2B, a first robotic gripper can be used to support a base of the object. The second robotic gripper is not being used. Upon determination that a portion of the object cannot be accessed by the printing heads (as described later), the second robotic gripper supports the object from a different location (e.g., in this case, provides a hanging support) such that printing can occur in the area that the prior support by the first robotic gripper was obscuring. In other words, while the object is being printed, another robotic gripper can grip the object from a different direction/angle etc. and/or grip the object from a different position of the object.”)
Karri does not explicitly disclose, but Hayashi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
set a condition for a face of a target object according to an expression indicating a product of norms of outer products using outer products that are a calculation operation for an angle formed by a vector indicating a direction in which the target object is grasped and a vector indicating an axis for defining a posture of the target object (see at least [0092]: “The calculation method shown in the present embodiment can be applied as calculation of any arm angle α in forward kinematics and inverse kinematics, and can adapt to various design specifications of the link actuation apparatus. Though an angle is used in these expressions, an expression using an arc length instead of the angle may be used because an arc length of a unit sphere is equal to a central angle formed by two certain straight lines in the unit sphere. Since a term in a sine or cosine function is considered at the unit spherical surface, load imposed by calculation processing can also be lessened by using, for example, a norm of an inner or outer product of vector P or A.sub.0.”)
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 Karri with the method of calculation as taught by Hayashi. This is because, as stated by Hayashi [0091]: “Therefore, repetitive operations are not required and the current position of the tip end can quickly be known or arm rotation angle β can quickly be calculated. Since arm rotation angle β not including an approximation error is calculated, by rotating all drive sources for attitude control in the same direction to apply constant torque, accuracy in constant torque load control for suppressing wobble due to mechanical play is enhanced and accuracy in positioning can be improved.”
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karri in view of Truebenbach et al. (US 20200316779 A1), hereinafter Truebenbach.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Karri and Hayashi teaches the controller according to claim 1.
Karri does not explicitly disclose, but Truebenbach teaches:
wherein the processor relaxes the condition so that there is a local optimal solution in a case where there is no local optimal solution in a search for an optimal solution for the face, obtains the local optimal solution for the relaxed condition, reduces a degree of relaxation of the condition in a case where the obtained local optimal solution is not a desired solution, and obtains the local optimal solution for the condition whose degree of relaxation is reduced (see at least [0093]: “In some embodiments, the robotic process described herein may allow for a relaxation of the initial constrained approach by determining an allowable range of poses that may reduce the number of constraints from the initial constrained approach. Accordingly, embodiments of robotic process may identify and subsequently allow for a range of poses for picking and/or placing a workpiece any of which being acceptable for accomplishing the task. In some embodiments, the least constraining option may be provided and/or selected (e.g. automatically).”)
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 Karri with the methods of Truebenbach. This is because, as stated in the background of Truebenbach’s disclosure: “Similarly, a workpiece to be grasped by an industrial robot may have symmetry that allows grasping in multiple ways. Natural tasking specifies the constraint on the robot in its minimal and least restrictive, way.”
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Karri, Hayashi and Truebenbach teaches the controller according to claim 2.
Karri does not explicitly disclose, but Truebenbach teaches:
The controller according to claim 2, wherein the processor changes content of the relaxation in a case where the relaxed condition is a condition in which a previously obtained local optimal solution is not obtained, obtains a local optimal solution for the condition relaxed in the changed content, reduces a degree of relaxation of the condition in a case where the obtained local optimal solution is not a desired solution, and obtains the local optimal solution for the condition whose degree of relaxation is reduced (see at least [0093]: “In some embodiments, the robotic process described herein may allow for a relaxation of the initial constrained approach by determining an allowable range of poses that may reduce the number of constraints from the initial constrained approach. Accordingly, embodiments of robotic process may identify and subsequently allow for a range of poses for picking and/or placing a workpiece any of which being acceptable for accomplishing the task. In some embodiments, the least constraining option may be provided and/or selected (e.g. automatically).”)
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 Karri with the methods of Truebenbach. This is because, as stated in the background of Truebenbach’s disclosure: “Similarly, a workpiece to be grasped by an industrial robot may have symmetry that allows grasping in multiple ways. Natural tasking specifies the constraint on the robot in its minimal and least restrictive, way.”
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karri in view of Emden-Weinart et al. (“Best Practice Simulated Annealing for the Airline Crew Scheduling Problem”), hereinafter Emden-Weinart.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Karri and Hayashi teaches:
The controller according to claim 1.
Karri does not explicitly disclose, but Emden-Weinart teaches:
wherein the processor relaxes the condition so that there is a local optimal solution using a simulated annealing (SA) method, obtains the local optimal solution for the relaxed condition, reduces a degree of relaxation of the condition in a case where the obtained local optimal solution is not a desired solution, and obtains the local optimal solution for the condition whose degree of relaxation is reduced (see at least section 4.3: Relaxing Constraints: “As noted in Section 2.2, one of the constraints we have to consider in our problem is the admissibility of a solution. But instead of forbidding any inadmissible pairing, we decided to relax this constraint and add the term ADMISS to the cost function. Every inadmissible pairing is penalised according to its length and a weighting factor. By means of this factor the penalty can be raised until any inadmissibilities are virtually forbidden. A small value, however, seems to make the solution space more strongly connected. This way it is easier to perform move sequences which temporarily create inadmissible solutions. Relaxing this constraint may produce an inadmissible solution as the final result of the optimisation. To prevent this we employ a heuristic calledADMISSIBILATOR. It removes any inadmissibilities after the annealing algorithm by successively increasing the corresponding penalty term and running the STEEPEST DESCENT algorithm. Consider figure 2. For various values of the admiss factor 20 tests were run on each. If the result of the annealing was admissible it is marked with a “£”. If not, the result of ADMISSIBILATOR is marked with a “C”. The median is computed for both. As expected, the solution costs rise for large admiss factors. On the other hand a factor of zero causes bad solutions too, since the annealing does not care for admissibility at all. Surprisingly the minimum of the resulting graph, the optimal admiss factor, is smaller than the border between admissible and inadmissible solutions. The whole process (annealing plus ADMISSIBILATOR) performs best if the solutions of the annealing have only a few bad pairings. Correcting them has only a minor effect on the solution. The standard deviation has its minimum at the same point. We conclude that, if an ADMISSIBILATOR is available, better solutions can be obtained by penalising inadmissible solutions slightly less than to produce admissible solutions only.”)
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 Karri with the method of Simulated Annealing as taught by Emden-Weinart. This is because, as stated in section 3.4 of Emden-Weinart: “The idea of simulated annealing dates back to Metropolis et al. (1953), who used a fixed temperature scheme. However, it was not until the early 80’s that the technique was introduced for discrete optimisation problems in the seminal works of Kirkpatrick, Gelatt, and Vecchi (1983) and Cˇ erny (1985). Consider Algorithm 1. The idea is to also accept moves which worsen the solution—but in a controlled manner. The “worse” a neighbour is—relative to the current solution—the lower the probability that it is accepted. Moreover, the probability with which a neighbour “worse” than the current solution is accepted is decreased throughout the annealing by a parameter called the temperature. For an indepth exposition of the technique see (Van Laarhoven and Aarts, 1987; Aarts and Korst, 1989). That simulated annealing has attracted so much attention is to a large extent due to the fact that there are rigorous mathematical results on its convergence properties, see (Romeo and Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, 1991; Aarts, Korts, and Van Laarhoven, 1997) for an overview.”
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
Prosecution Insights