CTFR 18/861,937 CTFR 97476 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are addressed below. Response to Amendment 1. The amendment filed 04/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Response to Arguments 2. Applicant’s arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection. In addition, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive in respect to the prior art not teaching “not record, as the teaching point, a position when the robot is not in contact with the object.” Regarding amended claim, the Applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that Miyamoto does not teach the limitation of “not recording, as the teaching point, a position when the robot is not in contact with the object”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Miyamoto states “The determination is performed based on the detection result output from the force detection part 20. Here, the memory unit 53 has stored (recorded) detection results (translational force components Fx, Fy, Fz and rotation force components Mx, My, Mz) of the force detection part 20 when the distal end of the dispenser 30 comes into contact with the object 80 ” (see at least [0093]) and “If the sensing part 521 determines contact (“Yes” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 stops driving of the robot 1 (step S23). In this case, the distal end of the dispenser 30 is in the state as shown in FIG. 6. On the other hand, if the sensing part 521 determines non-contact (“No” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 continues to drive the robot 1 until the sensing part 521 determines contact (step S21).” (see at least [0094]). In Addition, Miyamoto states “When the sensing part 521 determines contact , the generation part 522 generates data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in contact with the ejection part 80a (step S24). Further, the memory unit 53 stores the data ” (see at least [0095]). Miyamoto teaches determining when the dispenser of the robot comes into contact with the ejection part (object) and records that position. If there is no contact, then the control unit continues to drive the robot until the sensing part determines a contact. Thus, the system records the position when there is contact and does not record the position when there is no contact and loops back to drive the robot to sense when there is a contact. Therefore, the prior art meets the claim limitations, and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 3. 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA 4. Claim s 1-3, 7-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(2)/(a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miyamoto (US 20180056521, hereinafter Miyamoto) . Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto teaches a robot controller for controlling a robot, the robot controller comprising a processor (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0078]: “As shown in FIG. 2, the control apparatus 5 has a drive control unit 51, a processing unit 52 having a sensing part 521 and a generation part 522, and a memory unit 53.”) configured to: set, as a teaching point of a robot program, a position of the robot when contact between the robot and an object is detected (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0080]: “The processing unit 52 performs calculations of various kinds of data etc. Further, the processing unit 52 has the sensing part 521 that senses whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 (the tip end of the nozzle 32) has been in contact with the object 80. Further, the processing unit 52 has the generation part 522 that generates teaching data based on the result sensed by the sensing part 521 etc. Here, the teaching data is data for teaching an operation to be performed by the robot 1 to the robot 1.”; [0095]: “When the sensing part 521 determines contact, the generation part 522 generates data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in contact with the ejection part 80a (step S24). Further, the memory unit 53 stores the data. The position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in the data is represented by a robot coordinate system (including the base coordinate system and the local coordinate system).”) , based on an output of a first detector capable of detecting contact with the object, the first detector being mounted on the robot (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0093]: “Then, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a (step S22). The determination is performed based on the detection result output from the force detection part 20…Accordingly, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a based on the detection results output from the force detection part 20 and the detection results stored in the memory unit 53 in advance.”) ; and when the robot is operated to teach a trajectory tracing a surface or an edge line of the object, record, as the teaching point, the position of the robot when contact between the robot and the object is detected and not record, as the teaching point, a position when the robot is not in contact with the object (see at least Figs. 5-7 and [0087]: “The operation is performed by the worker moving the robot arm 10 directly by hand and storing the operation in the control apparatus 5 by manually operating the control apparatus 5 using the input device 46 or the like, the so-called direct teaching.”; [0093]: “Then, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a (step S22). The determination is performed based on the detection result output from the force detection part 20. Here, the memory unit 53 has stored (recorded) detection results (translational force components Fx, Fy, Fz and rotation force components Mx, My, Mz) of the force detection part 20 when the distal end of the dispenser 30 comes into contact with the object 80. Accordingly, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a based on the detection results output from the force detection part 20 and the detection results stored in the memory unit 53 in advance.”; [0094]: “If the sensing part 521 determines contact (“Yes” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 stops driving of the robot 1 (step S23). In this case, the distal end of the dispenser 30 is in the state as shown in FIG. 6. On the other hand, if the sensing part 521 determines non-contact (“No” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 continues to drive the robot 1 until the sensing part 521 determines contact (step S21).”; [0095]: “When the sensing part 521 determines contact, the generation part 522 generates data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in contact with the ejection part 80a (step S24). Further, the memory unit 53 stores the data .” Miyamoto teaches determining when the dispenser of the robot comes into contact with the ejection part (object) and records that position. If there is no contact, then the control unit continues to drive the robot until the sensing part determines a contact. Thus, the system records the position when there is contact and does not record the position when there is no contact and loops back to drive the robot to sense when there is a contact.) . It may be alleged that Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach not recording, as the teaching point, a position when the robot is not in contact with the object. However, the examiner believes that this is implicitly taught by Miyamoto when Miyamoto is interpreted by someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, even it is it not implicitly taught by Miyamoto, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not record a position when the robot is not in contact with the object in order to only recognize and report contact data points. Regarding claim 2, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1. Miyamoto further teaches wherein the first detector is an external force detector that detects an external force (see at least Fig. 1 and [0064]: “As shown in FIG. 1, the force detection part 20 is detachably attached to the distal end part of the sixth arm 16. The force detection part 20 is a force detector that detects forces and moment applied to the distal end part of the dispenser 30. In the embodiment, as the force detection part 20, a six-axis force sensor that may detect six components of translational force components Fx, Fy, Fz in the three axes (x-axis, y-axis, z-axis) directions orthogonal to one another and rotational force components (moment) Mx, My, Mz about the three axes (x-axis, y-axis, z-axis) is used.”) , and the processor (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0080]: “The processing unit 52 performs calculations of various kinds of data etc.”) is further configured to : perform control in such a way that the robot moves according to the external force detected by the first detector (see at least [0094]: “If the sensing part 521 determines contact (“Yes” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 stops driving of the robot 1 (step S23). In this case, the distal end of the dispenser 30 is in the state as shown in FIG. 6. On the other hand, if the sensing part 521 determines non-contact (“No” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 continues to drive the robot 1 until the sensing part 521 determines contact (step S21).”) , and sets, as the teaching point of the robot program, a position of the robot when contact between the robot and the object is detected while the robot is moving under the control of the processor (see at least [0095]: “When the sensing part 521 determines contact, the generation part 522 generates data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in contact with the ejection part 80a (step S24). Further, the memory unit 53 stores the data. The position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in the data is represented by a robot coordinate system (including the base coordinate system and the local coordinate system).”) . Regarding claim 3, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1. Miyamoto further teaches wherein the processor (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0080]: “The processing unit 52 performs calculations of various kinds of data etc.”) is further configured to: perform control in such a way that the robot moves according to an external force detected by a second detector being mounted on the robot and used for detecting an external force (see at least [0063]: “Further, in the respective drive sources 130, e.g. angle sensors such as encoders (not shown) are provided. Thereby, the rotation angles of the rotation shafts of the motors or reducers of the respective drive sources 130 may be detected.”; [0087]: “First, as shown in FIG. 4, a worker moves the distal end of the dispenser 30 closer to an ejection part 80a (a part in which ejection is to be performed) and teaches the operation of moving closer to the robot 1. In the embodiment, the worker teaches an operation of positioning the distal end of the dispenser 30 above (on the +z-axis side) the ejection part 80a of the object 80 to the robot 1. The operation is performed by the worker moving the robot arm 10 directly by hand and storing the operation in the control apparatus 5 by manually operating the control apparatus 5 using the input device 46 or the like, the so-called direct teaching.”) , and set , as the teaching point of the robot program, a position of the robot when contact between the robot and the object is detected while the robot is moving under the control of the processor (see at least [0091]: “The first processing is processing of generating data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in the ejection part 80a. More specifically, the first processing is processing of generating data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 when the dispenser 30 is moved from the object 80 by a first distance after sensing of the contact between the distal end of the dispenser 30 and the ejection part 80a is sensed based on the output from the force detection part 20. As below, the first processing will be explained with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG. 5.”) . Regarding claim 7, Miyamoto teaches a robot system (see at least Figs. 1-2) comprising: a robot on which a first detector capable of detecting contact with an object is mounted (see at least Fig. 1 and [0064]: “As shown in FIG. 1, the force detection part 20 is detachably attached to the distal end part of the sixth arm 16. The force detection part 20 is a force detector that detects forces and moment applied to the distal end part of the dispenser 30.”; [0080]: “The processing unit 52 performs calculations of various kinds of data etc. Further, the processing unit 52 has the sensing part 521 that senses whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 (the tip end of the nozzle 32) has been in contact with the object 80.”) ; and a processor configured to set, as a teaching point of a robot program, a position of the robot when contact between the robot and the object is detected (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0080]: “The processing unit 52 performs calculations of various kinds of data etc. Further, the processing unit 52 has the sensing part 521 that senses whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 (the tip end of the nozzle 32) has been in contact with the object 80. Further, the processing unit 52 has the generation part 522 that generates teaching data based on the result sensed by the sensing part 521 etc. Here, the teaching data is data for teaching an operation to be performed by the robot 1 to the robot 1.”; [0095]: “When the sensing part 521 determines contact, the generation part 522 generates data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in contact with the ejection part 80a (step S24). Further, the memory unit 53 stores the data. The position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in the data is represented by a robot coordinate system (including the base coordinate system and the local coordinate system).”) , based on an output of the first detector (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0093]: “Then, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a (step S22). The determination is performed based on the detection result output from the force detection part 20…Accordingly, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a based on the detection results output from the force detection part 20 and the detection results stored in the memory unit 53 in advance.”) ; and when the robot is operated to teach a trajectory tracing a surface or an edge line of the object, record, as the teaching point, the position of the robot when contact between the robot and the object is detected and not record, as the teaching point, a position when the robot is not in contact with the object (see at least Figs. 5-7 and [0087]: “The operation is performed by the worker moving the robot arm 10 directly by hand and storing the operation in the control apparatus 5 by manually operating the control apparatus 5 using the input device 46 or the like, the so-called direct teaching.”; [0093]: “Then, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a (step S22). The determination is performed based on the detection result output from the force detection part 20. Here, the memory unit 53 has stored (recorded) detection results (translational force components Fx, Fy, Fz and rotation force components Mx, My, Mz) of the force detection part 20 when the distal end of the dispenser 30 comes into contact with the object 80. Accordingly, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a based on the detection results output from the force detection part 20 and the detection results stored in the memory unit 53 in advance.”; [0094]: “If the sensing part 521 determines contact (“Yes” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 stops driving of the robot 1 (step S23). In this case, the distal end of the dispenser 30 is in the state as shown in FIG. 6. On the other hand, if the sensing part 521 determines non-contact (“No” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 continues to drive the robot 1 until the sensing part 521 determines contact (step S21).”; [0095]: “When the sensing part 521 determines contact, the generation part 522 generates data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in contact with the ejection part 80a (step S24). Further, the memory unit 53 stores the data .” Miyamoto teaches determining when the dispenser of the robot comes into contact with the ejection part (object) and records that position. If there is no contact, then the control unit continues to drive the robot until the sensing part determines a contact. Thus, the system records the position when there is contact and does not record the position when there is no contact and loops back to drive the robot to sense when there is a contact.) . It may be alleged that Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach not recording, as the teaching point, a position when the robot is not in contact with the object. However, the examiner believes that this is implicitly taught by Miyamoto when Miyamoto is interpreted by someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, even it is it not implicitly taught by Miyamoto, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not record a position when the robot is not in contact with the object in order to only recognize and report contact data points. Regarding claim 8, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 7. Miyamoto further teaches wherein the first detector is an external force detector that detects an external force (see at least Fig. 1 and [0064]: “As shown in FIG. 1, the force detection part 20 is detachably attached to the distal end part of the sixth arm 16. The force detection part 20 is a force detector that detects forces and moment applied to the distal end part of the dispenser 30. In the embodiment, as the force detection part 20, a six-axis force sensor that may detect six components of translational force components Fx, Fy, Fz in the three axes (x-axis, y-axis, z-axis) directions orthogonal to one another and rotational force components (moment) Mx, My, Mz about the three axes (x-axis, y-axis, z-axis) is used.”) , and the processor (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0080]: “The processing unit 52 performs calculations of various kinds of data etc.”) is further configured to: perform control in such a way that the robot moves according to an external force detected by the first detector (see at least [0094]: “If the sensing part 521 determines contact (“Yes” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 stops driving of the robot 1 (step S23). In this case, the distal end of the dispenser 30 is in the state as shown in FIG. 6. On the other hand, if the sensing part 521 determines non-contact (“No” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 continues to drive the robot 1 until the sensing part 521 determines contact (step S21).”) , and set , as the teaching point of the robot program, a position of the robot when contact between the robot and the object is detected while the robot is moving under the control of the processor (see at least [0095]: “When the sensing part 521 determines contact, the generation part 522 generates data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in contact with the ejection part 80a (step S24). Further, the memory unit 53 stores the data. The position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in the data is represented by a robot coordinate system (including the base coordinate system and the local coordinate system).”) . Regarding claim 9, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 7. Miyamoto further teaches wherein a second detector for detecting an external force is further mounted on the robot (see at least [0063]: “Further, in the respective drive sources 130, e.g. angle sensors such as encoders (not shown) are provided. Thereby, the rotation angles of the rotation shafts of the motors or reducers of the respective drive sources 130 may be detected.”) , and the processor (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0080]: “The processing unit 52 performs calculations of various kinds of data etc.”) is further configured to: perform control in such a way that the robot moves according to an external force detected by the second detector (see at least [0087]: “First, as shown in FIG. 4, a worker moves the distal end of the dispenser 30 closer to an ejection part 80a (a part in which ejection is to be performed) and teaches the operation of moving closer to the robot 1. In the embodiment, the worker teaches an operation of positioning the distal end of the dispenser 30 above (on the +z-axis side) the ejection part 80a of the object 80 to the robot 1. The operation is performed by the worker moving the robot arm 10 directly by hand and storing the operation in the control apparatus 5 by manually operating the control apparatus 5 using the input device 46 or the like, the so-called direct teaching.”) , and set, as the teaching point of the robot program, a position of the robot when contact between the robot and the object is detected while the robot is moving under the control of the processor (see at least [0091]: “The first processing is processing of generating data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in the ejection part 80a. More specifically, the first processing is processing of generating data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 when the dispenser 30 is moved from the object 80 by a first distance after sensing of the contact between the distal end of the dispenser 30 and the ejection part 80a is sensed based on the output from the force detection part 20. As below, the first processing will be explained with reference to the flowchart shown in FIG. 5.”) . Regarding claim 10, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 9. Miyamoto further teaches wherein the first detector is arranged at a position closer to a tip side of the robot than the second detector (see at least Fig. 1 and [0063]: “Further, in the respective drive sources 130, e.g. angle sensors such as encoders (not shown) are provided. Thereby, the rotation angles of the rotation shafts of the motors or reducers of the respective drive sources 130 may be detected.”; [0064]: “As shown in FIG. 1, the force detection part 20 is detachably attached to the distal end part of the sixth arm 16. The force detection part 20 is a force detector that detects forces and moment applied to the distal end part of the dispenser 30.”) . Regarding claim 14, Miyamoto teaches a teaching device for teaching a robot (see at least Figs. 1-2) , the teaching device comprising a processor (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0080]: “The processing unit 52 performs calculations of various kinds of data etc.”) configured to: set, as a teaching point of a robot program, a position of the robot when contact between the robot and an object is detected (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0080]: “The processing unit 52 performs calculations of various kinds of data etc. Further, the processing unit 52 has the sensing part 521 that senses whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 (the tip end of the nozzle 32) has been in contact with the object 80. Further, the processing unit 52 has the generation part 522 that generates teaching data based on the result sensed by the sensing part 521 etc. Here, the teaching data is data for teaching an operation to be performed by the robot 1 to the robot 1.”; [0095]: “When the sensing part 521 determines contact, the generation part 522 generates data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in contact with the ejection part 80a (step S24). Further, the memory unit 53 stores the data. The position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in the data is represented by a robot coordinate system (including the base coordinate system and the local coordinate system).”) , based on an output of a first detector capable of detecting contact with the object, the first detector being mounted on the robot (see at least Figs. 1-2 and [0093]: “Then, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a (step S22). The determination is performed based on the detection result output from the force detection part 20…Accordingly, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a based on the detection results output from the force detection part 20 and the detection results stored in the memory unit 53 in advance.”) ; and when the robot is operated to teach a trajectory tracing a surface or an edge line of the object, record, as the teaching point, the position of the robot when contact between the robot and the object is detected and not record, as the teaching point, a position when the robot is not in contact with the object (see at least Figs. 5-7 and [0087]: “The operation is performed by the worker moving the robot arm 10 directly by hand and storing the operation in the control apparatus 5 by manually operating the control apparatus 5 using the input device 46 or the like, the so-called direct teaching.”; [0093]: “Then, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a (step S22). The determination is performed based on the detection result output from the force detection part 20. Here, the memory unit 53 has stored (recorded) detection results (translational force components Fx, Fy, Fz and rotation force components Mx, My, Mz) of the force detection part 20 when the distal end of the dispenser 30 comes into contact with the object 80. Accordingly, the sensing part 521 determines whether or not the distal end of the dispenser 30 has come into contact with the ejection part 80a based on the detection results output from the force detection part 20 and the detection results stored in the memory unit 53 in advance.”; [0094]: “If the sensing part 521 determines contact (“Yes” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 stops driving of the robot 1 (step S23). In this case, the distal end of the dispenser 30 is in the state as shown in FIG. 6. On the other hand, if the sensing part 521 determines non-contact (“No” at step S22), the drive control unit 51 continues to drive the robot 1 until the sensing part 521 determines contact (step S21).”; [0095]: “When the sensing part 521 determines contact, the generation part 522 generates data on the position of the distal end of the dispenser 30 in contact with the ejection part 80a (step S24). Further, the memory unit 53 stores the data .” Miyamoto teaches determining when the dispenser of the robot comes into contact with the ejection part (object) and records that position. If there is no contact, then the control unit continues to drive the robot until the sensing part determines a contact. Thus, the system records the position when there is contact and does not record the position when there is no contact and loops back to drive the robot to sense when there is a contact.) . It may be alleged that Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach not recording, as the teaching point, a position when the robot is not in contact with the object. However, the examiner believes that this is implicitly taught by Miyamoto when Miyamoto is interpreted by someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. However, even it is it not implicitly taught by Miyamoto, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not record a position when the robot is not in contact with the object in order to only recognize and report contact data points . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 5. 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim s 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (US 20180056521, hereinafter Miyamoto) in view of Satou (US 20210053218, hereinafter Satou) . Regarding claim 4, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 2. Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach performing force control by damping control. However, Satou teaches a robot controller that performs force control by damping control (see at least Figs. 1, 3, 4, and [0021]: “Information on the forces detected by the force sensor 140 is transmitted to the robot controller 1. The robot controller 1 carries out the force control so that a force acting between the first workpiece W1 and the second workpiece W2 becomes a previously set magnitude. As a control method for the force control, known impedance control, damping control, hybrid control, or the like may be applied.”; [0031]: “Further, assuming that a left-right direction in FIG. 3 is an X direction, in the damping control, a velocity command in the X direction is calculated so as to satisfy an expression (1) below.”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Satou and a means to perform force control by damping control, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order help reduce unwanted vibration using the damping controls. Regarding claim 11, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 8. Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach performing force control by damping control. However, Satou teaches a robot controller that performs force control by damping control (see at least Figs. 1, 3, 4, and [0021]: “Information on the forces detected by the force sensor 140 is transmitted to the robot controller 1. The robot controller 1 carries out the force control so that a force acting between the first workpiece W1 and the second workpiece W2 becomes a previously set magnitude. As a control method for the force control, known impedance control, damping control, hybrid control, or the like may be applied.”; [0031]: “Further, assuming that a left-right direction in FIG. 3 is an X direction, in the damping control, a velocity command in the X direction is calculated so as to satisfy an expression (1) below.”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Satou and a means to perform force control by damping control, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order help reduce unwanted vibration using the damping controls . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim s 5 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (US 20180056521, hereinafter Miyamoto) in view of Ueda (US 20170203434, hereinafter Ueda) . Regarding claim 5, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1. Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach wherein, after the processor sets one teaching point, the processor is configured to operate in such a way as not to set a next teaching point until a predetermined time elapses. However, Ueda teaches an apparatus and system for teaching a robot wherein, after the processor sets one teaching point, the processor is configured to operate in such a way as not to set a next teaching point until a predetermined time elapses (see at least [0101]: “From the start of the teaching by the direct teaching to the end of the teaching, every time a predetermined time elapses according to the clocking by the clocking section 45, the teaching control section 46 causes the storing section 32 to store teaching point information in which position information indicating a relative position of the present position of the control point TC1 relative to the reference position, posture information indicating a relative posture of the present posture of the control point TC1 relative to the reference posture, and the present time are associated with one another. That is, in this example, the present time is order information. In this example, the predetermined time is 0.5 second. Note that, instead of this time, the predetermined time may be another time.”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Ueda and a means to operate in such a way as not to set a next teaching point until a predetermined time elapses after the processor sets one teaching point, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to store teaching points at a preset designated time. Regarding claim 12, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 7. Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach wherein, after the processor sets one teaching point, the processor is configured to operate in such a way as not to set a next teaching point until a predetermined time elapses. However, Ueda teaches an apparatus and system for teaching a robot wherein, after the processor sets one teaching point, the processor is configured to operate in such a way as not to set a next teaching point until a predetermined time elapses (see at least [0101]: “From the start of the teaching by the direct teaching to the end of the teaching, every time a predetermined time elapses according to the clocking by the clocking section 45, the teaching control section 46 causes the storing section 32 to store teaching point information in which position information indicating a relative position of the present position of the control point TC1 relative to the reference position, posture information indicating a relative posture of the present posture of the control point TC1 relative to the reference posture, and the present time are associated with one another. That is, in this example, the present time is order information. In this example, the predetermined time is 0.5 second. Note that, instead of this time, the predetermined time may be another time.”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Ueda and a means to operate in such a way as not to set a next teaching point until a predetermined time elapses after the processor sets one teaching point, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to store teaching points at a preset designated time . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 6 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (US 20180056521, hereinafter Miyamoto) in view of Yamada et al. (JPH03123908, hereinafter Yamada) . Regarding claim 6, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1. Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach operating in such a way that an interval between one teaching point and a next teaching point is equal to or more than a predetermined distance. However, Yamada teaches an apparatus and method for directly teaching position and attitude of robot that operates in such a way that an interval between one teaching point and a next teaching point is equal to or more than a predetermined distance (see at least page 7 and “In this configuration, the movement interval calculation unit 18 receives the position information and attitude information detected by the position detection unit 16, and calculates this (S)4i! Based on the information, the distance traveled by the hand of the robot 1 and the angle by which the wrist unit 4 has rotated are calculated, and when either of these calculated values becomes equal to or greater than the translational movement distance Δ11 or rotational movement angle Δθ previously set by the teaching interval setting switch 11C, a memory command signal is automatically sent to the teaching data memory unit 16 to store the teaching data for the position and posture of the robot 1 output from the position detection unit 17. The teaching data storage operation is programmed to be valid only when the teaching switch IIB is on so as not to store unnecessary data.”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Yamada and a means to operate in such a way that an interval between one teaching point and a next teaching point is equal to or more than a predetermined distance, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to only store teaching data for the position at the set distance and not to store unnecessary data. Regarding claim 13, Miyamoto teaches the limitations of claim 7. Miyamoto fails to explicitly teach operating in such a way that an interval between one teaching point and a next teaching point is equal to or more than a predetermined distance. However, Yamada teaches an apparatus and method for directly teaching position and attitude of robot that operates in such a way that an interval between one teaching point and a next teaching point is equal to or more than a predetermined distance (see at least page 7 and “In this configuration, the movement interval calculation unit 18 receives the position information and attitude information detected by the position detection unit 16, and calculates this (S)4i! Based on the information, the distance traveled by the hand of the robot 1 and the angle by which the wrist unit 4 has rotated are calculated, and when either of these calculated values becomes equal to or greater than the translational movement distance Δ11 or rotational movement angle Δθ previously set by the teaching interval setting switch 11C, a memory command signal is automatically sent to the teaching data memory unit 16 to store the teaching data for the position and posture of the robot 1 output from the position detection unit 17. The teaching data storage operation is programmed to be valid only when the teaching switch IIB is on so as not to store unnecessary data.”) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Yamada and a means to operate in such a way that an interval between one teaching point and a next teaching point is equal to or more than a predetermined distance, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to only store teaching data for the position at the set distance and not to store unnecessary data . Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN MINH LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3903. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:30am-5:30pm eastern time). Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached on (571)272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656 Application/Control Number: 18/861,937 Page 2 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 18/861,937 Page 3 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 18/861,937 Page 4 Art Unit: 3656
Prosecution Insights