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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 and 02/26/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system of controlling a robot (i.e., a method). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 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 1 recites:
A robotic system, comprising:
a robot configured to perform a predetermined operation; and
a controller configured to receive direct teaching of teaching an operational objective for the robot manually by a user and control the operation of the robot, wherein
the controller is configured to execute an adjustment control of adjusting a parameter to determine a manipulation feeling in the direct teaching, and is configured to, in the adjustment control:
acquire, on the basis of a result of causing the user to conduct a specific task operation
manually with respect to the robot, the parameter concerning the manipulation feeling and a predetermined evaluation index;
calculate, on the basis of the evaluation index, a score being a mechanical evaluation
value for the task operation, and present the score to the user; and
change the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation
feeling by the user.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person calculates a score on the basis of the evaluation index. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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”):
Independent claim 1 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 1 recites:
A robotic system, comprising:
a robot configured to perform a predetermined operation; and
a controller configured to receive direct teaching of teaching an operational objective for the robot manually by a user and control the operation of the robot, wherein
the controller is configured to execute an adjustment control of adjusting a parameter to determine a manipulation feeling in the direct teaching, and is configured to, in the adjustment control:
acquire, on the basis of a result of causing the user to conduct a specific task operation
manually with respect to the robot, the parameter concerning the manipulation feeling and a predetermined evaluation index;
calculate, on the basis of the evaluation index, a score being a mechanical evaluation
value for the task operation, and present the score to the user; and
change the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation
feeling by the user.
For the following reason(s), 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 “receive direct teaching of teaching an operational objective for the robot manually by a user …,” “acquire …,” “present the score …”, “change the parameter …”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (robot controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “present the score to the user” is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the score to the user), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “robot controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose robot control environment. The robot control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 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 for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a robot controller to perform the evaluating… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receive direct teaching of teaching an operational objective for the robot manually by a user …,” “acquire …,”, “present the score …”, and “change the parameter …”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receive direct teaching of teaching an operational objective for the robot manually by a user …,” and “acquire …, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensor is a conventional sensor mounted on the robot, and the specification does not provide any indication that the robot controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a robot. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “present the score …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a method of controlling a robot (i.e., a method). Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 13 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 13 recites:
A method for adjusting a parameter to determine a manipulation feeling in direct teaching of teaching an operational objective for a robot manually by a user, the direct teaching being executable in a robotic system, the method comprising:
causing the user to conduct a specific task operation manually with respect to the robot; deriving, on the basis of a result of the conduct of the task operation, the parameter concerning
the manipulation feeling and a predetermined evaluation index; and
calculating, on the basis of the evaluation index, a score being a mechanical evaluation value for the task operation, and presenting the score to the user; and
changing the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation feeling by the user.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person calculates a score on the basis of the evaluation index. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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”):
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 13 recites:
A method for adjusting a parameter to determine a manipulation feeling in direct teaching of teaching an operational objective for a robot manually by a user, the direct teaching being executable in a robotic system, the method comprising:
causing the user to conduct a specific task operation manually with respect to the robot; deriving, on the basis of a result of the conduct of the task operation, the parameter concerning
the manipulation feeling and a predetermined evaluation index; and
calculating, on the basis of the evaluation index, a score being a mechanical evaluation value for the task operation, and presenting the score to the user; and
changing the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation feeling by the user.
For the following reason(s), 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 “causing the user to conduct …,” “deriving,…,” “presenting the score …”, and “changing the parameter …”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (robot controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and acquiring steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “presenting the score to the user” is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the score to the user), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “robot controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose robot control environment. The robot control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 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 for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a robot controller to perform the evaluating… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “causing the user to conduct …,” “deriving,…,” “presenting the score …”, and “changing the parameter …”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “causing the user to conduct …,” “deriving,…,”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensor is a conventional sensor mounted on the robot, and the specification does not provide any indication that the robot controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a robot. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “presenting the score …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claims].
Therefore, claim(s) 1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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(s) 1-4, 6, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takematsu et al. (JP2010162621A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Takematsu) in view of Cheng et al. (JP 2021074788 A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding Claim 1, Takematsu teaches a robotic system, comprising:
a robot configured to perform a predetermined operation (See at least Para [0027] “Thus, a power assist device including a manipulator having excellent operability can be provided.”); and
a controller configured to receive direct teaching of teaching an operational objective for the robot manually by a user and control the operation of the robot (See at least Para [0053] “<Operation Procedure> First, the operator holds the operation handles 23 and 43 by hand and applies a force to pull up the operation handles 23 and 43 to rotate the arm 6 upward. Then, when the marker 100 of the rod-like body 101 provided at the second rotating joint 8 and the reference marker 102 on the upper side of the pole 104 coincide with each other, the input to the operation handles 23 and 43 is stopped…”), wherein
…
acquire, on the basis of a result of causing the user to conduct a specific task operation manually with respect to the robot, the parameter concerning the manipulation feeling and a predetermined evaluation index (See at least Para [0057] “In addition, the operational feeling of how the operator feels regarding the operability of the operation units 1 and 2 after the measurement of a series of operations is also taken as one of the evaluation elements here. Specifically, the operation feeling is divided into 6 stages, 6 points for “very good”, 5 points for “somewhat good”, 4 points for “a little good”, 3 points for “not good or bad”. On the other hand, “Slightly bad” is set to 2 points, “Somewhat bad” is set to 1 point, “Very bad” is set to 0 point, and is set as an evaluation value related to the operational feeling.”);
calculate, on the basis of the evaluation index, a score being a mechanical evaluation value for the task operation, and present the score to the user (See at least Para [0048] “…From the calculation unit 91, the position information, the speed information, and the like of the operation unit 11 subjected to the calculation process are output and displayed to the operator by a presentation unit 93 such as a monitor. Further, the evaluation value output from the evaluation unit 92 is also output and displayed on the presentation means 93. As a result, the operator can easily and accurately recognize the operability evaluation.”, Para [0057] “In addition, the operational feeling of how the operator feels regarding the operability of the operation units 1 and 2 after the measurement of a series of operations is also taken as one of the evaluation elements here. Specifically, the operation feeling is divided into 6 stages, 6 points for “very good”, 5 points for “somewhat good”, 4 points for “a little good”, 3 points for “not good or bad”. On the other hand, “Slightly bad” is set to 2 points, “Somewhat bad” is set to 1 point, “Very bad” is set to 0 point, and is set as an evaluation value related to the operational feeling.”); and …
However, Takematsu does not explicitly spell out …
the controller is configured to execute an adjustment control of adjusting a parameter to determine a manipulation feeling in the direct teaching, and is configured to, in the adjustment control: …
change the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation
feeling by the user.
Cheng teaches …
the controller is configured to execute an adjustment control of adjusting a parameter to determine a manipulation feeling in the direct teaching (See at least Page 1 Para 6
“…It is a robot system including an adjusting unit that adjusts the responsiveness of the robot to the operation information based on at least one of the properties of the motion.”), and is configured to, in the adjustment control: …
change the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation
feeling by the user (See at least Page 2 Para 6 “…A unit 53 and an operation control
unit 55 having a function of controlling the operation of the robot 10 according to a proportional coefficient adjusted by the adjustment unit 53 are provided. The information acquisition unit 52 determines the integrated value of the external force applied to the hand guide device 3 and a predetermined movable part based on the operation information received by the reception unit 51 and the information related to the control of the robot 10 acquired by the operation control unit 55. Generates information on at least one of the properties of motion when stopping at the position of with a reciprocating motion. The adjusting unit 53 adjusts a proportional coefficient that determines the speed of the robot 10 with respect to the magnitude of the external force applied to the hand guide device 3 based on the information generated by the information acquisition unit 52.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with Takematsu and include the feature of changing the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation
feeling by the user, thereby make smooth robot human interaction with operational accuracy.
7. Regarding Claim 2, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 1. Takematsu further teaches the robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation index includes information about an operational accuracy of the robot (See at least Para [0023] “According to this, the operator or the like can easily and accurately recognize the evaluation of operability based on the presentation by the visual or auditory presentation means.”, Para [0048] “<Operation Evaluation Device> As shown in FIG. 3, the operation evaluation device 90 calculates the signals converted by the force sensors 25 and 45 of the power assist devices A and B with respect to the operation input to obtain the operation input data and the power assist. A calculation unit 91 for processing position data and the like of each operation unit 11 of the devices A and B, and an evaluation unit 92 for converting each data from the calculation unit 91 into a predetermined evaluation value and outputting it. ing. From the calculation unit 91, the position information, the speed information, and the like of the operation unit 11 subjected to the calculation process are output and displayed to the operator by a presentation unit 93 such as a monitor. Further, the evaluation value output from the evaluation unit 92 is also output and displayed on the presentation means 93. As a result, the operator can easily and accurately recognize the operability evaluation.”).
8. Regarding Claim 3, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 1. Takematsu further teaches the robotic system according to claim 1, further comprising a display configured to display an interactive interface (See at least Para [0023] “According to this, the operator or the like can easily and accurately recognize the evaluation of operability based on the presentation by the visual or auditory presentation means.”, Para [0048] “<Operation Evaluation Device> As shown in FIG. 3, the operation evaluation device 90 calculates the signals converted by the force sensors 25 and 45 of the power assist devices A and B with respect to the operation input to obtain the operation input data and the power assist. A calculation unit 91 for processing position data and the like of each operation unit 11 of the devices A and B, and an evaluation unit 92 for converting each data from the calculation unit 91 into a predetermined evaluation value and outputting it. ing. From the calculation unit 91, the position information, the speed information, and the like of the operation unit 11 subjected to the calculation process are output and displayed to the operator by a presentation unit 93 such as a monitor. Further, the evaluation value output from the evaluation unit 92 is also output and displayed on the presentation means 93. As a result, the operator can easily and accurately recognize the operability evaluation.”), wherein
the controller is configured to dynamically change the parameter by providing the interactive interface with the score and receiving the subjective evaluation by the user from the interactive interface (See at least Para [0048] “… From the calculation unit 91, the position information, the speed information, and the like of the operation unit 11 subjected to the calculation process are output and displayed to the operator by a presentation unit 93 such as a monitor. Further, the evaluation value output from the evaluation unit 92 is also output and displayed on the presentation means 93. As a result, the operator can easily and accurately recognize the operability evaluation.”, Para [0057] “In addition, the operational feeling of how the operator feels regarding the operability of the operation units 1 and 2 after the measurement of a series of operations is also taken as one of the evaluation elements here. Specifically, the operation feeling is divided into 6 stages, 6 points for “very good”, 5 points for “somewhat good”, 4 points for “a little good”, 3 points for “not good or bad”. On the other hand, “Slightly bad” is set to 2 points, “Somewhat bad” is set to 1 point, “Very bad” is set to 0 point, and is set as an evaluation value related to the operational feeling.”).
9. Regarding claim 4, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 3. Takematsu further teaches the robotic system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
cause the interactive interface to display a question display section that displays a
question about the manipulation feeling to the user and an answer section that receives an answer to the question from the user (See at least Para [0057] “In addition, the operational feeling of how the operator feels regarding the operability of the operation units 1 and 2 after the measurement of a series of operations is also taken as one of the evaluation elements here. Specifically, the operation feeling is divided into 6 stages, 6 points for “very good”, 5 points for “somewhat good”, 4 points for “a little good”, 3 points for “not good or bad”. On the other hand, “Slightly bad” is set to 2 points, “Somewhat bad” is set to 1 point, “Very bad” is set to 0 point, and is set as an evaluation value related to the operational feeling.”, discloses operator’s operational feeling is taken as one of the evaluation elements that is good, bad, or in between which is construed as asking a question about the manipulation feeling to the user and an answer section that receives an answer to the question from the user); and
acquire information about the subjective evaluation by the user on the basis of
information input into the answer section (See at least Para [0057] “In addition, the operational feeling of how the operator feels regarding the operability of the operation units 1 and 2 after the measurement of a series of operations is also taken as one of the evaluation elements here. Specifically, the operation feeling is divided into 6 stages, 6 points for “very good”, 5 points for “somewhat good”, 4 points for “a little good”, 3 points for “not good or bad”. On the other hand, “Slightly bad” is set to 2 points, “Somewhat bad” is set to 1 point, “Very bad” is set to 0 point, and is set as an evaluation value related to the operational feeling.”).
10. Regarding Claim 6, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 4.
However, Takematsu does not explicitly spell out the robotic system according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to automatically modify the parameter on the basis of the acquired information about the subjective evaluation.
Cheng teaches the robotic system according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to automatically modify the parameter on the basis of the acquired information about the subjective evaluation (See at least Page 2 Para 6 “…A unit 53 and an operation control unit 55 having a function of controlling the operation of the robot 10 according to a proportional coefficient adjusted by the adjustment unit 53 are provided. The information acquisition unit 52 determines the integrated value of the external force applied to the hand guide device 3 and a predetermined movable part based on the operation information received by the reception unit 51 and the information related to the control of the robot 10 acquired by the operation control unit 55. Generates information on at least one of the properties of motion when stopping at the position of with a reciprocating motion. The adjusting unit 53 adjusts a proportional coefficient that determines the speed of the robot 10 with respect to the magnitude of the external force applied to the hand guide device 3 based on the information generated by the information acquisition unit 52.”, Page 8 Para 5 “According to the configuration of each embodiment described above, a robot system capable of automatically
setting the responsiveness of the robot to the operation of the hand guide device to a state desirable for the operator is realized.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with Takematsu and include the feature of controller being configured to automatically modify the parameter on the basis of the acquired information about the subjective evaluation, thereby make smooth robot human interaction with operational accuracy.
10. Regarding Claim 11, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Takematsu does not explicitly spell out the robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to execute the adjustment control at acceleration, at deceleration, at a stop time, and an operation start time of the robot individually in the direct teaching.
Cheng teaches the robotic system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to execute the adjustment control at acceleration, at deceleration, at a stop time, and an operation start time of the robot individually in the direct teaching (See at least Page 4 Para 2 “According to the above proportional coefficient adjustment process, when the operator OP moves the robot 10
in a certain direction via the operation handle 4 (that is, during acceleration operation) as shown in FIG. 3, the proportional coefficient is set to a desirable value for the operator OP. Can be set automatically. It can also be said that the first example regarding the determination of the proportional coefficient described above is an operation of adjusting the proportional coefficient based on the acceleration state within a certain period of time during the acceleration operation of the predetermined movable part of the robot 10.”, Page 4 Para 3 “Next, a second example regarding the determination of the proportional coefficient by the adjusting unit 53 will be described. In the second example relating to the determination of the proportionality coefficient, as shown in
FIG. 5, it is assumed that the robot 10 is decelerated and stopped (positioned) at a target position P1. Whether or not the robot 10 is in such a deceleration operation can be determined by detecting an operation of starting deceleration from a state in which the robot 10 is moving at a certain speed…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with Takematsu and include the feature of the controller being configured to execute the adjustment control at acceleration, at deceleration, at a stop time, and an operation start time of the robot individually in the direct teaching, thereby make smooth robot human interaction with operational accuracy.
11. Regarding Claim 13, Takematsu teaches a method for adjusting a parameter to determine a manipulation feeling in direct teaching of teaching an operational objective for a robot manually by a user, the direct teaching being executable in a robotic system (See at least Para [0053] “<Operation Procedure> First, the operator holds the operation handles 23 and 43 by hand and applies a force to pull up the operation handles 23 and 43 to rotate the arm 6 upward. Then, when the marker 100 of the rod-like body 101 provided at the second rotating joint 8 and the reference marker 102 on the upper side of the pole 104 coincide with each other, the input to the operation handles 23 and 43 is stopped…”), the method comprising:
causing the user to conduct a specific task operation manually with respect to the robot (See at
least Para [0053] “<Operation Procedure> First, the operator holds the operation handles 23 and 43 by hand and applies a force to pull up the operation handles 23 and 43 to rotate the arm 6 upward. Then, when the marker 100 of the rod-like body 101 provided at the second rotating joint 8 and the reference marker 102 on the upper side of the pole 104 coincide with each other, the input to the operation handles 23 and 43 is stopped…”);
deriving, on the basis of a result of the conduct of the task operation, the parameter concerning
the manipulation feeling and a predetermined evaluation index (See at least Para [0057] “In addition, the operational feeling of how the operator feels regarding the operability of the operation units 1 and 2 after the measurement of a series of operations is also taken as one of the evaluation elements here. Specifically, the operation feeling is divided into 6 stages, 6 points for “very good”, 5 points for “somewhat good”, 4 points for “a little good”, 3 points for “not good or bad”. On the other hand, “Slightly bad” is set to 2 points, “Somewhat bad” is set to 1 point, “Very bad” is set to 0 point, and is set as an evaluation value related to the operational feeling.”); and
calculating, on the basis of the evaluation index, a score being a mechanical evaluation value for the task operation, and presenting the score to the user (See at least Para [0048] “…From the calculation unit 91, the position information, the speed information, and the like of the operation unit 11 subjected to the calculation process are output and displayed to the operator by a presentation unit 93 such as a monitor. Further, the evaluation value output from the evaluation unit 92 is also output and displayed on the presentation means 93. As a result, the operator can easily and accurately recognize the operability evaluation.”, Para [0057] “In addition, the operational feeling of how the operator feels regarding the operability of the operation units 1 and 2 after the measurement of a series of operations is also taken as one of the evaluation elements here. Specifically, the operation feeling is divided into 6 stages, 6 points for “very good”, 5 points for “somewhat good”, 4 points for “a little good”, 3 points for “not good or bad”. On the other hand, “Slightly bad” is set to 2 points, “Somewhat bad” is set to 1 point, “Very bad” is set to 0 point, and is set as an evaluation value related to the operational feeling.”); and …
However, Takematsu does not explicitly spell out …
changing the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation feeling by the user.
Cheng teaches …
changing the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation feeling by the user (See at least Page 2 Para 6 “…A unit 53 and an operation control unit 55 having a function of controlling the operation of the robot 10 according to a proportional coefficient adjusted by the adjustment unit 53 are provided. The information acquisition unit 52 determines the integrated value of the external force applied to the hand guide device 3 and a predetermined movable part based on the operation information received by the reception unit 51 and the information related to the control of the robot 10 acquired by the operation control unit 55. Generates information on at least one of the properties of motion when stopping at the position of with a reciprocating motion. The adjusting unit 53 adjusts a proportional coefficient that determines the speed of the robot 10 with respect to the magnitude of the external force applied to the hand guide device 3 based on the information generated by the information acquisition unit 52.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with Takematsu and include the feature of changing the parameter depending on a subjective evaluation about the manipulation
feeling by the user, thereby make smooth robot human interaction with operational accuracy.
12. Regarding Claim 14, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 2. Takematsu further teaches the robotic system according to claim 2, further comprising a display configured to display an interactive interface (See at least Para [0023] “According to this, the operator or the like can easily and accurately recognize the evaluation of operability based on the presentation by the visual or auditory presentation means.”, Para [0048] “<Operation Evaluation Device> As shown in FIG. 3, the operation evaluation device 90 calculates the signals converted by the force sensors 25 and 45 of the power assist devices A and B with respect to the operation input to obtain the operation input data and the power assist. A calculation unit 91 for processing position data and the like of each operation unit 11 of the devices A and B, and an evaluation unit 92 for converting each data from the calculation unit 91 into a predetermined evaluation value and outputting it. ing. From the calculation unit 91, the position information, the speed information, and the like of the operation unit 11 subjected to the calculation process are output and displayed to the operator by a presentation unit 93 such as a monitor. Further, the evaluation value output from the evaluation unit 92 is also output and displayed on the presentation means 93. As a result, the operator can easily and accurately recognize the operability evaluation.”), wherein
the controller is configured to dynamically change the parameter by providing the interactive interface with the score and receiving the subjective evaluation by the user from the interactive interface (See at least Para [0048] “… From the calculation unit 91, the position information, the speed information, and the like of the operation unit 11 subjected to the calculation process are output and displayed to the operator by a presentation unit 93 such as a monitor. Further, the evaluation value output from the evaluation unit 92 is also output and displayed on the presentation means 93. As a result, the operator can easily and accurately recognize the operability evaluation.”, Para [0057] “In addition, the operational feeling of how the operator feels regarding the operability of the operation units 1 and 2 after the measurement of a series of operations is also taken as one of the evaluation elements here. Specifically, the operation feeling is divided into 6 stages, 6 points for “very good”, 5 points for “somewhat good”, 4 points for “a little good”, 3 points for “not good or bad”. On the other hand, “Slightly bad” is set to 2 points, “Somewhat bad” is set to 1 point, “Very bad” is set to 0 point, and is set as an evaluation value related to the operational feeling.”).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takematsu et al. (JP2010162621A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Takematsu) in view of Cheng et al. (JP 2021074788 A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Cheng), and further in view of Fu et al. (US 20240383134 A1) (Hereinafter Fu).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 4.
However, Takematsu does not explicitly spell out the robotic system according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to generate modification proposal information about modification of the parameter on the basis of the acquired information about the subjective evaluation, and cause the interactive interface to display the modification proposal information.
Fu teaches the robotic system according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to generate modification proposal information about modification of the parameter on the basis of the acquired information about the subjective evaluation, and cause the interactive interface to display the modification proposal information (See at least Claim 1 “…and an adjustment screen display unit configured to restore the selected execution history to the program and display an adjustment screen for adjusting a setting parameter of the program to which the selected execution history has been restored.”, Para [0054] “Operation buttons for performing various operations are displayed in the operation button display region 515. Depression of a detection button 541 or an “CAPTURE IMAGE+DETECT” button 542 after adjusting various parameters in the parameter display region 513 enables execution of the detection program with new parameters and checking the result.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fu with Takematsu and include the feature of a controller being configured to generate modification proposal information about modification of the parameter on the basis of the acquired information about the subjective evaluation, and cause the interactive interface to display the modification proposal information, thereby provide improved usability in regard to the parameter adjustment of a program can be realized (See at least Para [0025] “…efficient parameter adjustment of a detection program, which improves user-friendliness (usability) in regard to the parameter adjustment.”, Para [0063] “…As a result, improved usability in regard to the parameter adjustment of a program can be realized.”).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 3.
However, Takematsu does not explicitly spell out the robotic system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
cause the interactive interface to display a parameter adjustment section that receives a change in the parameter from the user (See at least Claim 1 “…and an adjustment screen display unit configured to restore the selected execution history to the program and display an adjustment screen for adjusting a setting parameter of the program to which the selected execution history has been restored.”, Para [0054] “Operation buttons for performing various operations are displayed in the operation button display region 515. Depression of a detection button 541 or an “CAPTURE IMAGE+DETECT” button 542 after adjusting various parameters in the parameter display region 513 enables execution of the detection program with new parameters and checking the result.”, Para [0063] “According to the aforementioned embodiment, by selecting an execution history, the execution history can be restored to a program and a user can perform adjustment of setting parameters of the program to which the execution history has been restored. Such a configuration enables a user to efficiently perform adjustment of the setting parameters of a program. As a result, improved usability in regard to the parameter adjustment of a program can be realized.”); and
change the parameter on the basis of information input into the parameter adjustment section (See at least Claim 1 “…and an adjustment screen display unit configured to restore the selected execution history to the program and display an adjustment screen for adjusting a setting parameter of the program to which the selected execution history has been restored.”, Para [0054] “Operation buttons for performing various operations are displayed in the operation button display region 515. Depression of a detection button 541 or an “CAPTURE IMAGE+DETECT” button 542 after adjusting various parameters in the parameter display region 513 enables execution of the detection program with new parameters and checking the result.”, [0063] “According to the aforementioned embodiment, by selecting an execution history, the execution history can be restored to a program and a user can perform adjustment of setting parameters of the program to which the execution history has been restored. Such a configuration enables a user to efficiently perform adjustment of the setting parameters of a program. As a result, improved usability in regard to the parameter adjustment of a program can be realized.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fu with Takematsu and include the feature of causing the interactive interface to display a parameter adjustment section that receives a change in the parameter from the user and changing the parameter on the basis of information input into the parameter adjustment section, thereby provide improved usability in regard to the parameter adjustment of a program can be realized (See at least Para [0025] “…efficient parameter adjustment of a detection program, which improves user-friendliness (usability) in regard to the parameter adjustment.”, Para [0063] “…As a result, improved usability in regard to the parameter adjustment of a program can be realized.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takematsu et al. (JP2010162621A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Takematsu) in view of Cheng et al. (JP 2021074788 A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Cheng), and further in view of Kim (US 20140098393 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 3.
However, the robotic system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to cause
the interactive interface to display a loading button to load an existing parameter as an initial value.
Kim teaches the robotic system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to
cause the interactive interface to display a loading button to load an existing parameter as an initial value (See at least Para [0049] “the S/W button can be displayed on, for example, a screen of an interface window of the image forming apparatus 110. As the button is pushed or selected, initial setup value information of the Wi-Fi Direct stored to a storage unit, such as a DRAM memory unit, of the image forming apparatus 110 is loaded and thus the Wi-Fi Direct function operates according to the initial setup value information.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim with Takematsu and include the feature of the controller being configured to cause the interactive interface to display a loading button to load an existing parameter as an initial value, thereby improved usability during human robot interaction.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takematsu et al. (JP2010162621A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Takematsu) in view of Cheng et al. (JP 2021074788 A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Cheng), and further in view of Sammons et al. (US 20140061169 A1) (Hereinafter Sammons).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Takematsu does not explicitly spell out the robotic system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a storage configured to store the parameter, wherein
the controller is configured to:
execute the adjustment control for a plurality of the users individually, for a type of an application of the robot, or for a type of an end effector; and
cause the storage part to store the adjusted parameter in such a manner as to be called up in execution of the direct teaching.
Cheng teaches the robotic system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a storage configured to store the parameter (See at least Page 8 Para 3 “… The
adjusting unit 53A may be configured to separately store the proportional coefficient during the acceleration operation and the proportional coefficient during the deceleration operation of the robot 10.”), wherein
the controller is configured to:
…
cause the storage part to store the adjusted parameter in such a manner as to be called up in
execution of the direct teaching (See at least Page 2 Para 3 “…In this configuration, the operator OP can operate the hand guide device 3 to perform hand guide (so-called direct teaching) to the robot 10.”, Page 2 Para 7 “In direct teaching, the operator OP moves the robot 10 by applying a force to the operation handle 4 of the hand guide device 3…”, Page 8 Para 3 “… The adjusting unit 53A may be configured to separately store the proportional coefficient during the acceleration operation and the proportional coefficient during the deceleration operation of the robot 10.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cheng with Takematsu and include the feature of storing the adjusted parameter in such a manner as to be called up in execution of the direct teaching, thereby make smooth robot human interaction with operational accuracy.
Sammons teaches …
execute the adjustment control for a plurality of the users individually, for a type of an application of the robot, or for a type of an end effector (See at least Para [0011] “In still another aspect, the interface enables simplified changes to the welding parameters, enabling the weld to be adjusted for multiple users,… The interface also quickly guides users to weldable starting settings, and then allows them to fine tune the weld, enabling better welding without sacrificing user control.”); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sammons with Takematsu and include the feature of executing the adjustment control for a plurality of the users individually, for a type of an application of the robot, or for a type of an end effector, thereby provide improved efficiency and usability in regard to the parameter adjustment of a program can be realized (See at least Para [0123] “In another aspect, the interface improves efficiency by communicating weld parameters in terms of the desired output, thereby enabling welders to operate using terms they know, and reducing confusion.”, Para [0121] “… A predetermined system architecture and layout can guide the organization of the interface, such that relationships and hierarchy are consistent between machines, and improving efficiency of access to settings and information…”).
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takematsu et al. (JP2010162621A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Takematsu) in view of Cheng et al. (JP 2021074788 A, Attached English translated copy is used for claim mapping) (Hereinafter Cheng), and further in view of Riek et al. (US 20210178575 A1) (Hereinafter Riek).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 3.
However, Takematsu does not explicitly spell out the robotic system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
cause the interactive interface to display a number-of-times input section that receives an input of setting of the number of repetition times of the task operation; and
allow the conduct of the same task operation for the number of repetition times associated with the input of setting.
Rick teaches the robotic system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to:
cause the interactive interface to display a number-of-times input section that receives an input of setting of the number of repetition times of the task operation (See at least Para [0465] “In this example, the process definition is determined by:”, Para [0466] “Teaching mode: a person shows through the vision system the tasks which need to be performed.”, Para [0468] “Human operators also input to the system some performance criteria like the number of repetition, weight of parts, material of parts”); and
allow the conduct of the same task operation for the number of repetition times associated with the input of setting (See at least Para [0466] “Teaching mode: a person shows through the vision system the tasks which need to be performed.”, Para [0468] “Human operators also input to the system some performance criteria like the number of repetition, weight of parts, material of parts”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riek with Takematsu and include the feature of causing the interactive interface to display a number-of-times input section that receives an input of setting of the number of repetition times of the task operation and allow the conduct of the same task operation for the number of repetition times associated with the input of setting, thereby improve flexibility, improved efficiency, and usability in regard to the parameter adjustment of a program can be realized (See at least Para [0017] “There is a need for a method for supporting designing and operation of a robotic system that allows for improved flexibility in design and/or construction and/or operation and/or re-use of the robotic system and its components.”, Para [0018] “It is therefore an object of the invention to create a method for supporting designing and operation of a robotic system, which overcomes the disadvantages mentioned above.”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Takematsu teaches all the elements of claim 9.
However, Takematsu does not explicitly spell out the robotic system according to claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to finish the conduct of the task operation in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied or the controller receives a finish instruction from the user before the conduct reaches the number of repetition times associated with the input of setting.
Raek teaches the robotic system according to claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to finish the conduct of the task operation in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied (See at least Para [0416] “The BOS determines the actions to be accomplished by each Hardware Module 3, and their mutual dependency, e.g. as a sequence and/or by parallel execution. The vision system can transfer to the BOS information related to the execution of the tasks by the robots in real time, so that the BOS can cause the next order to be executed once the previous one is finished.”) or the controller receives a finish instruction from the user before the conduct reaches the number of repetition times associated with the input of setting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Riek with Takematsu and include the feature of the controller being configured to finish the conduct of the task operation in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied thereby improve flexibility, improved efficiency (See at least Para [0017] “There is a need for a method for supporting designing and operation of a robotic system that allows for improved flexibility in design and/or construction and/or operation and/or re-use of the robotic system and its components.”, Para [0018] “It is therefore an object of the invention to create a method for supporting designing and operation of a robotic system, which overcomes the disadvantages mentioned above.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Roy (US 20230252308 A1) teaches Employment of individual artificial intelligence
algorithms which may include tailoring parameters based on the desires of the individual user’s using the same common set of algorithms or individually or as a group as appropriate
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHEDA HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-5310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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.
/SHAHEDA HOQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights