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 Entry / Effective Filing Date
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/JP2022/018323, filed on 20 April 2022. As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims are 20 April 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10 October 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figures [13-17] contain a minor spelling mistake; menu item 4 (in the case of Figures [13-14]) states "Alerm" in addition to the heading of the display pages (for all of Figures [13-17]) stating "Alerm", whereas the examiner believes that "Alarm" is intended in both cases.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: While minor, the examiner notes that "a robot" in claim 1 is not indented to the same position as the other components in the robot system.
Claims 1, 7, 8: Independent claims 1, 7, and 8 use the phrase "in association of" whereas "in association [[of]] with" appears to be intended.
Claim 6: Claim 6 states “and the display unit display the” and should state “and the display unit displays the”.
Claim 8: Claim 8 states “control of the robot” but “the robot” lacks antecedent basis in the first instance.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation(s) 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:
Storage unit – claim 1
Generation unit – claim 1
Display unit – claim 1, 3, 6-7
Saving unit – claim 1, 7
Comparison unit – claim 1-2, 4, 7
Receiving unit – claim 7
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 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 “storage unit”, the examiner notes that the specification does not refer explicitly to a storage “unit”, but instead a storage “device”. The examiner considers these terms analogous and notes that paragraphs [12-13, 15, 19] and Figure [2] provide the requisite for understanding what constitutes a storage device/unit.
Regarding “generation unit”, the examiner notes that the specification does not discuss this component or its relation to structure. For prior art purposes, the examiner will consider any form of hardware and/or software which performs the claimed function to read upon the claim language.
Regarding “display unit”, the examiner notes that while the specification provides a requisite for understanding in paragraph [0018], for instance.
Regarding “saving unit”, the examiner notes that paragraphs [0019-0020] and Figure [2], for instance, describe a requisite for understanding the storage device “saving unit” despite using analogous, and not explicitly identical, terminology.
Regarding “comparison unit”, the examiner notes that paragraphs [0019-0020] and Figure [2], for instance, describe a requisite for understanding the comparison unit/program despite using analogous, and not explicitly identical, terminology.
Regarding “receiving unit”, the examiner notes that this term is not used in the specification. From the description of the task performed, the examiner notes that paragraph [0011] and Figure [2] appear to describe the “communication device” to be analogous to the “receiving unit”, and the examiner will consider these terms analogous to 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 1-8 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.
ISSUE 1: Claim limitation “Generation 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. As noted above, the examiner notes that the specification does not discuss this component/term or its relation to structure. For prior art purposes, the examiner will consider any form of hardware and/or software which performs the claimed function to read upon the claim language. 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.
ISSUE 2: Claim 3 recites “…in a display mode different from…”. The term mode used in this context is a term of relative degree that falls under the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(b). The examiner consulted the specification and found examples (purely exemplary and does not appear to be limiting) in specification paragraph [0031] which states “different display mode, such as shading, filling, or the like”. The examiner is ultimately unsure as to the metes and bounds of the claim language regarding what else may be considered a “mode”, such as transparent text, colored text, certain icons, hidden information, amongst an infinite number of other possibilities. Therefore, the term “mode” without providing a requisite for understanding the metes and bounds of the claim language renders the claim indefinite.
ISSUE 3: Independent claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected for reciting "compare[ing] two image data files". Put simply, the preceding steps of the claims recite that a single image data file is generated and saved. There is no explicit disclosure that a second image file to be compared against is obtained. If only one image data file is obtained, there is no second image file to perform the comparison. Therefore, the claims lack essential steps of explaining what other image(s) may be used to be compared with the obtained image.
ISSUE 4: Claim 4 states "wherein the comparison unit compares the two image data files excluding a specific range." The examiner is unsure as to what is meant by "a specific range". The examiner reviewed specification paragraph [0043] and interprets this to mean that certain data or portions of the image file are omitted from the comparison process, but is unsure if this is the intent. The word "range" implies limits and does not further clarify what the limits are. Dependent claim 5 attempts to clarify but does not resolve the issue. The examiner is unsure if "a specific [[range]] portion of the image data" is intended or if a "range" of data that is not otherwise explicitly discussed is intended. Ultimately, the wording of "excluding a specific range" is unclear and confusing and renders the claim indefinite as the examiner is unsure regarding the metes and bounds of the claim language.
Therefore, the examiner notes that the above noted phrases and terms are indefinite and fail 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.
As all independent claims (1, 7, and 8) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), all claims which depend upon them are rejected as well. Therefore claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-6 are directed to a system, claim 7 is directed to an apparatus, and claim 8 is directed to an apparatus (non-transitory storage medium). Therefore, claims 1-8 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 8 recites:
A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to implement:
receiving an information screen showing information relating to control of the robot from the controller;
displaying the information screen showing the information relating to control of the robot;
saving the displayed information screen as an image data filed in association of a save date and time; and
comparing two image data files having different save dates and times.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The act of receiving information is considered pre-solutionary necessary data gathering. Displaying information is peripherally claimed and may be considered further pre-solutionary necessary data gathering, as the display information acts as a generic data input. The mental process, then, resides in the actions of saving and comparing images. A human is generally able to observe two images presented and identify differences between them. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to implement:
receiving an information screen showing information relating to control of the robot from the controller;
displaying the information screen showing the information relating to control of the robot;
saving the displayed information screen as an image data filed in association of a save date and time; and
comparing two image data files having different save dates and times.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of a generic non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the claim elements reference generic components, which amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity as necessary data gathering and outputting. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because they are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and as such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claims 1 and 7 are analogous to claim 8 but further recite elements such as a generic robot, generic teach pendant (an input device), and a generic controller, which are merely interpreted as generic linking components to a technological environment, analogous to the rationale provided above for the non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Therefore, the rationale for rejection is analogous to the explanation provided above for claim 8.
Regarding claims 2-6, the claims specify and/or further limits similar to the previously addressed abstract idea above and does not recite additional limitations that present a practical application nor amount to “significantly more” for analogous reasons above.
Claim 2 merely discusses that differences are obtained, which a human is generally capable of performing (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claim 3 merely pertains to mere obvious design decision regarding how information is displayed, wherein the information display is pre-solutionary activity as noted (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claims 4-5 merely discuss exclusion of certain parameters from the comparison, as a human would be able to perform as well (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Claim 6 merely describes observing further data input in the form of further information screens, as a human would be able to navigate/perceive (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2020/0167886 A; published 28 May 2020, hereinafter Cho).
Regarding independent claims 1 (system), 7 (apparatus), and 8 (apparatus, Non-Transitory Storage Medium): Cho discloses A robot system comprising: a robot; a controller configured to control the robot; and a teach pendant connected to the controller, wherein (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0019, 0025] and Figure [1-2], Cho discloses a system comprising a robot, robot control device (controller), and an input/output display device and operation input device (analogous to a “teach pendant”)) / A teach pendant connected to a controller of a robot, the teach pendant comprising: (per claim 7) (Paragraph [0019, 0025] and Figure [1-2], Cho discloses an input/output display device and operation input device (analogous to a “teach pendant”) that is connected to a robot control device (controller)) / A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to implement: (per claim 8) (Paragraph [0030-0032, 0072] and Claim [12], Cho discloses non-transitory memory for housing the program)
the controller includes: a storage unit configured to store information relating to control of the robot; and a generation unit configured to generate data relating to an information screen for displaying the stored information, and (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0019-0021, 0023, 0025, 0034] and Figure [1-2], Cho discloses that the control device (which may be located within the same housing as the image processing device) contains storage to store robot control information “The teaching point is stored in the robot 102, the robot control device 101, or the image processing device 103”. Further, the combined 101/103 control and processing device receives image data that is later used to be displayed. The examiner notes that “related to” is broad, and the action of generating commands for the arm in addition to receiving of image data are both considered generation of data “related to” an information screen, as both impact the location and data obtained by the arm to be displayed)
a receiving unit configured to receive an information screen showing information relating to control of the robot from the controller; (per claim 7) / receiving an information screen showing information relating to control of the robot from the controller; (per claim 8) (Paragraph [0020-0021, 0023] and Figure [1-2], Cho discloses capturing images and receiving/processing the images related to control of the robot)
the teach pendant includes: a display unit configured to display the information screen; (per claim 1) / a display unit configured to display the information screen showing the information relating to control of the robot; (per claim 7) / displaying the information screen showing the information relating to control of the robot; (per claim 8) (Paragraph [0019, 0025-0026, 0048-0051] and Figure [1-2, 6-7], Cho discloses an input/output display device and operation input device (analogous to a “teach pendant”), the display screen is configured to display information related to control of the robot)
a saving unit configured to save the displayed information screen as an image data file in association of a save date and time; and (per claim 1) / a saving unit configured to save the displayed information screen as an image data file in association of a save date and time; and (per claim 7) / saving the displayed information screen as an image data filed in association of a save date and time; and (per claim 8) (Paragraph [0023, 0033-0035, 0046, 0060, 0066, 0069] and Figure [2], Cho discloses saving of information including teaching points and stored images. Further, information is disclosed to be stored pertaining to time data, and is thus “in association of/with” the time)
a comparison unit configured to compare two image data files having different save dates and times. (per claim 1) / a comparison unit configured to compare two image data files having different save dates and times. (per claim 7) / comparing two image data files having different save dates and times. (per claim 8) (Paragraph [0050, 0057, 0067, 0069], Figure [6], and Claim [7], Cho discloses a comparison of images (stored vs current, for instance) performed by the components of the system)
Regarding claim 2: Cho discloses parent claim 1. Cho further discloses wherein the comparison unit extracts a portion with a difference between the two image data files. (Paragraph [0050, 0057] and Figure [6], Cho discloses obtaining a difference between images)
Regarding claim 3: Cho discloses parent claim 2. Cho further discloses wherein the display unit displays the two image data files side by side and the portion with the difference is displayed in a display mode different from a portion without a difference. (Paragraph [0050, 0055] and Figure [6], Cho discloses and shows in Figure [6] differences in the side-by-side of images, showing one as cross-hatched and one with solid lines, additionally one with X’s)
Regarding claim 4: Cho discloses parent claim 1. Cho further discloses wherein the comparison unit compares the two image data files excluding a specific range. (Paragraph [0049-0050, 0055] and Figure [6], Cho discloses excluding feature portions and/or abiding by user selections (excluding non-selected))
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Hey et al. (US 2015/0347284 A1; hereinafter Hey).
Regarding claim 5: Cho discloses parent claim 4. Cho further discloses wherein the specific range includes a range in which a date and time [are located in the information screen]. (The examiner notes that mere inclusion of the time on the information screen appears to be claimed. Paragraph [0060, 0069] and Figure [6], Cho discloses information is disclosed to be stored pertaining to time data)
Cho does not explicitly disclose that time/date information is excluded from comparison of image data.
However, Hey, in a similar field of endeavor of image analysis, teaches wherein the specific range includes a range in which a date and time are located in the information screen. (Paragraph [0021], Hey teaches screenshot comparison that excludes information that continuously changes/updates, such as a time and date stamp)
Cho and Hey solve a similar problem of identifying differences between stored images. 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 Cho to include an exclusion of date/time data as taught by Hey, in order to prevent comparison of data that intentionally continuously changes (Hey, Paragraph [0021]). This constitutes a combination of applying a known technique (filtering of image data during image comparison) to a known technology/device (the apparatus of Cho) in order to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6: Claim 5 is unpatentable over Cho in view of Hey. Cho further discloses wherein the information screen includes a link to another information screen, and the teach pendant follows the link, and the display unit display the another information screen. (Paragraph [0025-0026, 0039-0043] and Figure [4, 6], Cho discloses a user interface with a plurality of buttons/icons/selectable “links” that navigate the GUI to display following screens/messages)
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 2011/0243459 A1
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO DETECT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAGES
Deng
Filed: 05 Apr 2010
Pub: 06 Oct 2011
Discusses comparing images to detect differences, showing the images side by side, and highlighting differences.
2
US 2015/0251317 A1
ROBOTSYSTEM, ROBOT MONITORING
DEVICE, AND ROBOT MONITORING
METHOD
MATSUKUMA et al.
Filed: 03 Mar 2015
Pub: 10 Sep 2015
Discusses generating display information for a robot that corresponds to time information; a succession of images are saved (corresponding to times) with determination results.
3
US 2022/0100378 A1
RECOVERY POINT OBJECTIVE
OPTIMIZED FILE RECOVERY
Borate et al.
Filed: 18 Nov 2020
Pub: 31 Mar 2022
Discusses obtaining snapshots of data obtained from a device wherein the snapshots may be images, and comparing the snapshots to identify differences.
4
US 2010/0305758 A1
ROBOT CONTROL SYSTEMPROVIDED IN
MACHINING SYSTEM INCLUDING ROBOT
AND MACHINE TOOL
NISHI et al.
Filed: 28 May 2010
Pub: 02 Dec 2010
Discusses a robot control system including a controller, pendant, and display information that corresponds to the robot.
5
US 2006/0293785 A1
INDUSTRIAL ROBOT
Ideda et al.
Filed: 17 Mar 2005
Pub: 28 Dec 2006
Discusses a robot system comprising a controller and pendant wherein a display showing different software versions may be shown and the versions may be compared to identify differences.
6
US 2022/0027340 A1
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING
CHANGES IN WEBPAGES AND
GENERATING METRIC CORRELATIONS
THEREFROM
Abdoun et al.
Filed: 22 Jul 2020
Pub: 27 Jan 2022
Discusses comparing images of webpages taken from different times and identifying differences. Can exclude portions of the image data.
7
US 10,831,991 B1
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TESTING
CONTENT DEVELOPED FOR ACCESS VIA A
NETWORK
Hansen et al.
Filed: 31 May 2016
Pub: 10 Nov 2020
Discusses obtaining images of webpages, comparing the two, and identifying differences between them. Certain data may be excluded from analysis.
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 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658