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.
Priority / National Stage Entry / Effective Filing Date
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/JP2022/035317, filed in Japan on 22 September 2022, claiming priority to Japanese filing JP2022-081457 on 18 May 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 and acknowledgement is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims are 18 May 2022.
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of a preliminary amendment prior to the first office action. The examiner has reviewed the amendment and determined that no new matter was submitted. As such, the preliminary amendment is being considered.
Status of Claims
With preliminary amendments received, the most recent revision of the claim set is dated 12 August 2025. Claims 19-21 are cancelled. Claims 1-18 and 22 are pending and rejected, as noted further below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 08 October 2024 complies 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“first imaging unit” – claim 7
“image analysis unit” – claim 7
“measurement device” – claim 8, 9, 10
“second imaging unit” – claim 10
“first trajectory calculator” – claim 9
“second trajectory calculator” – claim 10
“input unit” – claim 13
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding “imaging unit” (both first and second), paragraphs [0087, 0119-0120] discuss the unit in terms of what the unit does but not what it is, nor gives appropriate examples. Therefore, support from the specification regarding this term is not provided.
Regarding “image analysis unit”, paragraph [0087] mentions the unit and what it performs but does not provide appropriate structure.
Regarding “measurement device”, claim 9 describes that the measurement device includes encoders and paragraph [0119] discusses the requisite for understanding what may constitute a “measurement device”.
Regarding “trajectory calculator” (both first and second), paragraphs [0098, 0119-0120] provide the requisite for understanding.
Regarding “input unit”, paragraphs [0030, 0033, 0046, 0049, 0083-0084] provide the requisite for understanding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “imaging unit” (both first and second) and “image analysis unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding “imaging unit” (both first and second), paragraphs [0087, 0119-0120] discuss the unit in terms of what the unit does but not what it is, nor gives appropriate examples. Therefore, support from the specification regarding this term is not provided. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The examiner considers any combination of software and/or hardware which results in an image-producing and image-analysis/processing to read upon the claim language.
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Negishi (US 2015/0148956 A1; published 28 May 2015, hereinafter Negishi).
Regarding independent claim 1 (apparatus): Negishi discloses A control device, comprising: a processor to acquire (Paragraph [0037-0038, 0125] and Figure [1-2], Negishi discloses a control apparatus comprising a processor (CPU))
a piece of movement data indicating an operational trajectory of a robot including at least a movement start point at which the robot starts a movement and a movement end point at which the robot ends the movement, or a first learning data set containing a piece of data indicating a first learning trajectory of the robot including at least a first learning movement start point at which the robot starts a movement and a first learning movement end point at which the robot ends the movement; (The examiner notes that the word “or” is used, indicating that only one of the two listed data examples is necessary. Paragraph [0034-0035], Negishi discloses a trajectory (including a target trajectory) made up of points (start and end points included))
control the robot in accordance with the piece of movement data or the first learning data set, and (Paragraph [0034-0035], Negishi discloses moving according to the target trajectory)
calculate, from a piece of data on a first trajectory and a piece of data on a first ideal trajectory, a geometric deformation of the first trajectory relative to the first ideal trajectory, the first trajectory being an actual trajectory actually defined by a movement of the robot and the first ideal trajectory being an ideal trajectory preferably defined by a movement of the robot when the robot is controlled in accordance with the first learning data set, and (Paragraph [0044, 0067], Negishi discloses calculating a trajectory error between the actual trajectory and the target trajectory)
generate, based on the calculated geometric deformation and the piece of data contained in the first learning data set, a first correction model for correcting the piece of movement data and thus reducing the calculated geometric deformation, wherein (Paragraph [0047-0049], Negishi discloses generating a compensator based upon the comparison to correct the trajectory and reduce the error)
when the processor controls the robot in accordance with the piece of movement data, the processor corrects the piece of movement data using the first correction model, and thus calculates a piece of corrected movement data, and (Paragraph [0049], Negishi discloses correcting the trajectory using the compensator selected)
controls the robot in accordance with the piece of corrected movement data. (Paragraph [0049, 0061-0062], Negishi discloses controlling the robot with the corrected/revised/compensated control scheme)
Regarding claim 2: Negishi discloses parent claim 1. Negishi further discloses the first learning data set contains, in addition to the piece of data indicating the first learning trajectory of the robot, at least one piece of data indicating at least one deformed trajectory generated through geometric deformation of the first learning trajectory, (Paragraph [0044, 0047-0049, 0065, 0068] and Figure [4A-4B], Negishi discloses a first set of data that includes the first commanded/target trajectory, resulting actual trajectory, and resulting measured error)
the processor generates the first correction model in association with each of the first learning trajectory and the at least one deformed trajectory, and (Paragraph [0044, 0047-0049, 0065, 0068-0069] and Figure [4A-4B], Negishi discloses that the correction model is based upon the first commanded/target trajectory in addition to the resulting error in order to produce and then further rely upon the selected correction model)
when the processor controls the robot in accordance with the piece of movement data, the processor determines which trajectory, among the first learning trajectory and the at least one deformed trajectory, is approximate to the operational trajectory indicated by the piece of movement data, (Paragraph [0044, 0047-0049, 0065, 0068-0070] and Figure [4A-4B], Negishi discloses choosing between compensations depending upon whether the evaluation value is degraded or improved (thus, “approximate” to the commanded/target trajectory))
corrects the piece of movement data using the first correction model associated with the trajectory determined to be approximate, and thus calculates a piece of corrected movement data. (Paragraph [0071-0072], Negishi discloses correcting the movement data with the best compensator in order to calculate a further (corrected) movement command to be sent to the arm)
Regarding claim 3: Negishi discloses parent claim 1. Negishi further discloses wherein the geometric deformation is a deformation generated through rotation, magnification or demagnification, or translation of the first ideal trajectory, or a deformation generated through a combination of rotation, magnification or demagnification, and translation of the first ideal trajectory. (The examiner notes that by recitation of “or” that only one is needed to anticipate the list. Paragraph [0006-0007] and Figure [5-7], Negishi discloses sources of error including vibration (which is a translation at the least) when acting upon a trajectory, further showing examples of error in the figures compared to the ideal/commanded trajectory)
Regarding claim 4: Negishi discloses parent claim 1. Negishi further discloses wherein the processor acquires at least one of the piece of movement data, the first learning data set, or a second learning data set indicating the operational trajectory, (The examiner notes that through recitation of “or” that only one is necessary. Paragraph [0034-0035, 0063-0065], Negishi discloses obtaining movement data/trajectory)
controls the robot in accordance with the at least one of the piece of movement data, the first learning data set, or the second learning data set, (Paragraph [0034-0035], Negishi discloses moving according to the target trajectory)
calculates, from a piece of data on a second trajectory and a piece of data on a second ideal trajectory, positional deviations of individual segments of the second trajectory from corresponding segments of the second ideal trajectory, the second trajectory being an actual trajectory actually defined by a movement of the robot and the second ideal trajectory being an ideal trajectory preferably defined by a movement of the robot when the robot is controlled in accordance with the second learning data set, and (Paragraph [0063-0072], Negishi discloses an iterative process wherein a plurality of trajectories may be fed in order to compare the effects of iterative compensation values. Thus, the “second iteration” (such as where k = 2) satisfies this language)
generates, based on the calculated positional deviations and the second learning data set, the second correction model for reducing the calculated positional deviations, and (Paragraph [0063-0072], Negishi discloses an iterative process, generating a plurality of compensation models based upon the result of measuring error with the most recent measured trajectory against the most recent commanded trajectory, resulting in an iterative compensation model that is compared against previous compensation models identified to select one that is improved)
when the processor controls the robot in accordance with the piece of movement data, corrects the piece of movement data using the first correction model and then further corrects the piece of movement data using the second correction model, and thus calculates a piece of corrected movement data, and (Paragraph [0063-0072], Negishi discloses an iterative process wherein a first compensation value is identified, the k-value is iterated, the process repeats, and a second compensation value is identified. Then, the first and second compensation values are compared and relied upon for further processing (thus, the resulting control scheme is the product of all previous compensation schemes))
controls the robot in accordance with the piece of corrected movement data. (Paragraph [0049, 0061-0062, 0072], Negishi discloses controlling the robot with the corrected/revised/compensated control scheme)
Regarding claim 5: Negishi discloses parent claim 4. Negishi further discloses wherein the processor generates the second correction model using an optimization algorithm. (Paragraph [0069, 0071, 0098], Negishi discloses that the choice of the best error compensation scheme is the result of an optimization problem/algorithm)
Regarding claim 6: Negishi discloses the control device according to claim 1. Negishi further discloses A robot system, comprising: a robot; and (Paragraph [0029] and Figure [1], Negishi further discloses a system comprising a robot in addition to the control apparatus discussed in the parent claim) the control device according to claim 1. (see parent claim)
Regarding claim 8: Negishi discloses parent claim 6. Negishi further discloses further comprising: a measurement device to measure the first trajectory of the robot, wherein the processor acquires the first trajectory from the measurement device. (Paragraph [0012, 0031-0032, 0036], Negishi discloses encoders (and alternatively, a camera) in order to measure the actual trajectory of the robot)
Regarding claim 9: Negishi discloses parent claim 8. Negishi further discloses wherein the robot includes links, and motors to turn the respective links, and (Paragraph [0029-0031] and Figure [1], Negishi discloses a robot that has links and motors/actuators to turn rotational joints at each link)
the measurement device includes encoders to detect respective rotational positions of the motors, and a first trajectory calculator to calculate, from the rotational positions detected by the encoders, the first trajectory of the robot. (Paragraph [0031], Negishi discloses encoders used to measure joint position and ascertain actual trajectory)
Regarding claim 10: Negishi discloses parent claim 8. Negishi further discloses wherein the measurement device includes a second imaging unit to capture an image of the robot, and (Paragraph [0032], Negishi discloses a camera to measure the position of the tip of the robot arm)
a second trajectory calculator to calculate, from the image captured by the second imaging unit and location information on the second imaging unit, the first trajectory of the robot. (Paragraph [0032], Negishi discloses a camera used to measure the position of the tip of the robot arm to ascertain actual trajectory)
Regarding claim 11: Negishi discloses parent claim 6. Negishi further discloses further comprising: a storage device to store the piece of movement data, wherein the processor acquires the piece of movement data from the storage device. (Paragraph [0011-0012, 0047, 0062, 0065], Negishi discloses storing trajectory information in the storage unit, which is utilized/acquired as necessary)
Regarding claim 12: Negishi discloses parent claim 11. Negishi further discloses wherein the storage device further stores the first learning data set, and the processor acquires the first learning data set from the storage device. (Paragraph [0011-0012, 0047, 0062, 0065], Negishi discloses storing trajectory information (including learning data such as trajectories and error/compensation model information) in the storage unit, which is utilized/acquired as necessary)
Regarding claim 13: Negishi discloses parent claim 6. Negishi further discloses further comprising: an operation terminal including an input unit through which the piece of movement data is input, wherein the processor acquires the piece of movement data from the operation terminal. (Paragraph [0029, 0034] and Figure [2], Negishi discloses a teaching pendant which may be used as an input device for a user to input movement data)
Regarding independent claim 14 (apparatus): Negishi discloses A learning device comprising a second processor to generate a first correction model for correcting a piece of movement data acquired by a control device, the control device including a first processor to (Paragraph [0034-0035, 0037-0038, 0043, 0049] and Figure [3], Negishi discloses a plurality of units (which may reasonably be processors as they process data) within a robot control apparatus which generates correction models for correcting trajectories)
acquire a piece of movement data indicating an operational trajectory of a robot including at least a movement start point at which the robot starts a movement and a movement end point at which the robot ends the movement, and (Paragraph [0034-0035], Negishi discloses a trajectory (including a target/operational trajectory) made up of points (start and end points included))
control the robot in accordance with the piece of movement data acquired by the first processor, wherein the second processor (Paragraph [0034-0035], Negishi discloses moving according to the target trajectory)
calculates, from a piece of data on a first trajectory and a piece of data on a first ideal trajectory, a geometric deformation of the first trajectory relative to the first ideal trajectory, the first trajectory being an actual trajectory actually defined by a movement of the robot and the first ideal trajectory being an ideal trajectory preferably defined by a movement of the robot when the first processor controls the robot in accordance with a first learning data set acquired by the first processor, the first learning data set containing a piece of data indicating a first learning trajectory of the robot including at least a first learning movement start point at which the robot starts a movement and a first learning movement end point at which the robot ends the movement, and (Paragraph [0044, 0067], Negishi discloses calculating a trajectory error between the actual trajectory and the target trajectory)
generates, based on the calculated geometric deformation and the piece of data contained in the first learning data set, the first correction model for correcting the piece of movement data and thus reducing the calculated geometric deformation. (Paragraph [0047-0049], Negishi discloses generating a compensator based upon the comparison to correct the trajectory and reduce the error)
Regarding claim 15: Negishi discloses parent claim 14. Negishi further discloses wherein the first learning data set contains, in addition to the piece of data indicating the first learning trajectory of the robot, at least one piece of data indicating at least one deformed trajectory generated through geometric deformation of the first learning trajectory, and (Paragraph [0044, 0047-0049, 0065, 0068] and Figure [4A-4B], Negishi discloses a first set of data that includes the first commanded/target trajectory, resulting actual trajectory, and resulting measured error)
the second processor generates the first correction model in association with each of the first learning trajectory and the at least one deformed trajectory. (Paragraph [0044, 0047-0049, 0065, 0068-0069] and Figure [4A-4B], Negishi discloses that the correction model is based upon the first commanded/target trajectory in addition to the resulting error in order to produce and then further rely upon the selected correction model)
Regarding claim 16: Negishi discloses parent claim 14. Negishi further discloses wherein the geometric deformation in generation of the first correction model is a deformation generated through rotation, magnification or demagnification, or translation of the first ideal trajectory, or a deformation generated through a combination of rotation, magnification or demagnification, and translation of the first ideal trajectory. (The examiner notes that by recitation of “or” that only one is needed to anticipate the list. Paragraph [0006-0007] and Figure [5-7], Negishi discloses sources of error including vibration (which is a translation at the least) when acting upon a trajectory, further showing examples of error in the figures compared to the ideal/commanded trajectory)
Regarding claim 17: Negishi discloses parent claim 14. Negishi further discloses wherein the second processor calculates, from a piece of data on a second trajectory and a piece of data on a second ideal trajectory, positional deviations of individual segments of the second trajectory from corresponding segments of the second ideal trajectory, the second trajectory being an actual trajectory actually defined by a movement of the robot and the second ideal trajectory being an ideal trajectory preferably defined by a movement of the robot when the first processor controls the robot in accordance with a second learning data set acquired by the first processor, the second learning data set indicating the operational trajectory, and (Paragraph [0063-0072], Negishi discloses an iterative process wherein a plurality of trajectories may be fed in order to compare the effects of iterative compensation values. Thus, the “second iteration” (such as where k = 2) satisfies this language)
generates, based on the calculated positional deviations and the second learning data set, a second correction model for reducing the calculated positional deviations. (Paragraph [0063-0072], Negishi discloses an iterative process, generating a plurality of compensation models based upon the result of measuring error with the most recent measured trajectory against the most recent commanded trajectory, resulting in an iterative compensation model that is compared against previous compensation models identified to select one that is improved)
Regarding claim 18: Negishi discloses parent claim 17. Negishi further discloses wherein the second processor generates the second correction model using an optimization algorithm. (Paragraph [0069, 0071, 0098], Negishi discloses that the choice of the best error compensation scheme is the result of an optimization problem/algorithm)
Regarding independent claim 22 (apparatus): Negishi discloses A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program, the program configured to cause a computer for controlling a robot to execute: (Paragraph [0037-0038, 0125], Figure [1-2], and Claim [6-7], Negishi discloses a control apparatus comprising memory storing instructions)
a step of controlling the robot in accordance with a first learning data set, the first learning data set containing a piece of data indicating a first learning trajectory of the robot including at least a first learning movement start point at which the robot starts a movement and a first learning movement end point at which the robot ends the movement, and (Paragraph [0034-0035, 0064-0065], Negishi discloses controlling a robot according to a first trajectory comprising a plurality of points (start and end included))
measuring a first trajectory, the first trajectory being an actual trajectory actually defined by a movement of the robot when the robot is controlled in accordance with the first learning data set; (Paragraph [0036, 0065], Negishi discloses obtaining an actual trajectory, which is a measured trajectory)
a step of calculating, from a piece of data on the first trajectory and a piece of data on a first ideal trajectory, a geometric deformation of the first trajectory relative to the first ideal trajectory, the first ideal trajectory being an ideal trajectory preferably defined by a movement of the robot, and (Paragraph [0044, 0067], Negishi discloses calculating a trajectory error between the actual trajectory and the target trajectory)
generating, based on the calculated geometric deformation and the first learning data set, a first correction model for reducing the calculated geometric deformation; (Paragraph [0047-0049], Negishi discloses generating a compensator based upon the comparison to correct the trajectory and reduce the error)
a step of correcting a piece of movement data using the first correction model, the piece of movement data containing at least a movement start point at which the robot starts a movement and a movement end point at which the robot ends the movement, and thus calculating a piece of corrected movement data; and (Paragraph [0049], Negishi discloses correcting the trajectory using the compensator selected)
a step of controlling the robot in accordance with the piece of corrected movement data calculated in the step of calculating a piece of corrected movement data. (Paragraph [0049, 0061-0062], Negishi discloses controlling the robot with the corrected/revised/compensated control scheme)
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi in view of Yamaoka et al. (US 2020/0147799 A1; published 14 May 2020, hereinafter Yamaoka).
Regarding claim 7: Negishi discloses parent claim 6. Negishi further discloses further comprising:
a first imaging unit; and (Paragraph [0032], Negishi explicitly discloses that a camera or the like (imaging unit) may be used to determine the actual trajectory)
[an image analysis unit to analyze an image captured by the first imaging unit, wherein]
the robot includes a tool, (Paragraph [0029-0031] and Figure [1], Negishi discloses that the robot includes a plurality of components and shows an end effector, which may reasonably read upon “tool”)
[the first imaging unit captures an image of a work to be processed by the tool,
the image analysis unit
extracts distinctive characteristics of the work from the image captured by the first imaging unit, and]
calculates, [from location information on the first imaging unit and positions of the extracted distinctive characteristics in the image,] a piece of movement data, and (Paragraph [0032], Negishi explicitly discloses that a camera or the like (imaging unit) may be used to determine the actual trajectory)
the processor acquires the piece of movement data from the image [analysis] unit. (Paragraph [0032], Negishi explicitly discloses that a camera or the like (imaging unit) may be used to determine the actual trajectory)
Negishi primarily discusses the use of encoder data in order to ascertain actual trajectory information for the robot, but explicitly discloses the possibility of using a camera in order to obtain actual movement data, as discussed above, and therefore provides an explicit teaching/suggestion to utilize alternative known means of obtaining actual motion data using a camera. Negishi then differs from the claim in the specifics regarding how the camera obtains actual motion data.
However, Yamaoka, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control, teaches further comprising: a first imaging unit; and (Paragraph [0019] and Figure [1-3], Yamaoka teaches a camera (imaging unit))
an image analysis unit to analyze an image captured by the first imaging unit, wherein (Paragraph [0019, 0023] and Figure [3], Yamaoka teaches analysis through a component of the system (an analysis unit) of the image data captured by the camera)
the robot includes a tool, (Paragraph [0019] and Figure [1-3], Yamaoka teaches that the robot has a tool)
the first imaging unit captures an image of a work to be processed by the tool, (Paragraph [0025-0026], Yamaoka teaches that the camera captures an image of the work environment including the circle made by the tool)
the image analysis unit extracts distinctive characteristics of the work from the image captured by the first imaging unit, and (Paragraph [0025-0026], Yamaoka teaches extracting image information to obtain edge information (distinctive characteristics))
calculates, from location information on the first imaging unit and positions of the extracted distinctive characteristics in the image, a piece of movement data, and (Paragraph [0021], Yamaoka teaches that the camera is used to acquire operational (actual) trajectory of the robot)
the processor acquires the piece of movement data from the image analysis unit. (Paragraph [0024-0025, 0030-0033], Yamaoka teaches that the image data is used for correction of the control of the robot)
Negishi and Yamaoka are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Negishi to particularly utilize an image analysis method in order to determine actual trajectory as taught by Yamaoka, as this is directly/explicitly disclosed by Negishi. As noted above, Negishi (Paragraph [0032]) explicitly states that an alternative to utilizing encoder data in order to measure an actual trajectory is the use of a camera. Yamaoka is merely relied upon as a teaching reference which expands upon the idea of how a camera may measure an actual trajectory of a robot per the claimed steps. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination as directly/explicitly disclosed by the primary reference Negishi in order to utilize another known (equivalent) measurement choice.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2015/0336267 A1
LEARNING PATH CONTROL
Sun et al.
Filed: 21 May 2014
Pub: 26 Nov 2015
Discusses a system for correcting the movement of a robot by recording actual path via encoder data and comparing the actual path to the desired path to identify deviation and correct for the deviation.
2
US 2019/0176325 A1
AN ERROR MODELING METHOD FOR
END-EFFECTOR SPACE-CURVE
TRAJECTORY OF SIX
DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM ROBOTS
Liu et al.
Filed: 25 Sep 2017
Pub: 13 Jun 2019
Discusses correcting trajectories.
3
US 2022/0161439 A1
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS,
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD ,
ROBOT SYSTEM , MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ,
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ARTICLE
WITH ROBOT SYSTEM , AND RECORDING
MEDIUM
Izumi
Filed: 17 Nov 2021
Pub: 26 May 2022
Discusses calibration/correction of a robot by minimizing a difference between an ideal state and an actual state.
4
US 2020/0306976 A1
CALIBRATION APPARATUS FOR
CALIBRATING MECHANISM ERROR
PARAMETER FOR CONTROLLING ROBOT
Yuelai et al.
Filed: 27 Mar 2020
Pub: 01 Oct 2020
Discloses setting a variety of poses and then measuring the actual position state.
5
US 2019/0061163 A1
CONTROL DEVICE AND ROBOT SYSTEM
Yamaguchi et al.
Filed: 30 Aug 2018
Pub: 28 Feb 2019
Discusses a method of calibration of a robot using a camera to identify positions.
6
US 2020/0324410 A1
APPARATUS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS
FOR IMPROVED JOINT COORDINATE
TEACHING ACCURACY OF ROBOTS
Bergantz et al.
Filed: 09 Apr 2020
Pub: 15 Oct 2020
Discusses error associated with movement of a robot arm and correction based on the measured error.
7
US 2023/0311310 A1
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
MANAGING ROBOT PATH
Mao et al.
Filed: 17 Sep 2020
Pub: 05 Oct 2023
Discusses obtaining a real path of a tip of a robot system, comparing to the ideal/setpoint path, identifying a deviation, and correcting for the deviation.
8
US 2021/0370509 A1
BACKUP TRACKING FOR AN
INTERACTION SYSTEM
Pivac
Filed: 16 Jul 2019
Pub: 02 Dec 2021
Discusses compensating for error between a measured and ideal position of a robot arm.
9
US 2024/0009836 A1
3D PRINTER USING ROBOT AND CONTROL
APPARATUS FOR ROBOT
Kondou
Filed: 19 May 2023 (priority of 02 Dec 2020)
Pub: 11 Jan 2024
Discusses correcting the deviation between the target trajectory and actual trajectory of a robot.
10
US 2010/0206938 A1
PROCESS FOR WORKING A CONTOUR ON
AT LEAST ONE WORKPIECE BY MEANS OF
A ROBOT
Quandt et al.
Filed: 14 Jun 2008
Pub: 19 Aug 2010
Discusses correction of motion of a robot by measuring an actual/real course of movement, comparing to the ideal course, and determining a displacement/deviation.
11
US 2011/0246132 A1
MACHINE MOTION TRAJECTORY
MEASURING DEVICE, NUMERICALLY
CONTROLLED MACHINE TOOL, AND
MACHINE MOTION TRAJECTORY
MEASURING METHOD
Sato et al.
Filed: 09 Jun 2011
Pub: 06 Oct 2011
Discusses correction of trajectory parameters in a robot by comparing a detected signal to a programmed signal and identifying a deviation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658