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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the filing of two preliminary amendments dated 11/6/2024 and 7/2/2025. Examiner has examined the latest version of the claims dated 7/2/2025 along with the latest version of the specification dated 7/2/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “object” and “the object is the work tool” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "and a robot" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “robot” was already recited in parent clam 1.
The examiner does not understand claim 9 “the object is the work tool.” This limitation is not described in the specification nor shown on the drawings. The examiner will interpret this phrase to mean that the object and work tool are two distinct things.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutaragi (US2024/0420355) in view of Takahashi et al (US2020/0147805).
A controller for a robot device (¶0005 “a robot control system, a robot control method”) including a robot (1310) and a three-dimensional vision sensor (“sensor system 120”, “the generator 810 performs…sensing”) including a two-dimensional camera configured to capture an image of an object (“target” or “target 800”), the controller (“controller 130”, “robot controller 1322”) comprising:
an operation detecting unit configured to detect an operation state of the robot (¶0012 “a robot controller that controls the robot so as to perform handling of the handling target”, fig. 13 at 1320);
an imaging control unit (120 fig. 1) configured to change an exposure (¶0055 2nd sentence especially “while changing, for example, an exposure period”) condition of the two-dimensional camera (“visible light camera 124”, “SWIR camera 123”);
a position information generating unit configured to generate three-dimensional position information of the object based on a two-dimensional image captured by the two-dimensional camera (Abstract last lines “reproduces the appearance of the target in a computer-readable form by associating the three-dimensional data with the two-dimensional data”; ¶0006); and
a synthesis unit (“combined”, “combining”, ¶0055 “acquires image data of high dynamic range (HDR) by synthesizing the acquired image data”) configured to implement control for synthesizing a plurality of the two- dimensional images or control for synthesizing a plurality of pieces of the three-dimensional position information (figure 8, ¶0032, ¶0071-0073), wherein
during a period in which the operation detecting unit detects an operation of the robot (¶0012), the imaging control unit captures the two-dimensional image (¶0016 “acquiring two-dimensional data indicating two-dimensional appearance over the entire circumference of the target viewed…sequentially irradiated…by associating the three-dimensional data with the two-dimensional data”) at a predetermined interval under a predetermined exposure condition (“predetermined pattern and light”), and
when the operation detecting unit detects stopping of the robot (¶0124), the imaging control unit (fig. 8 at 810(130)) changes the exposure condition and captures the plurality of two-dimensional images, and the synthesis unit synthesizes the plurality of two-dimensional images or the plurality of pieces of three- dimensional position information (figure 8 steps B811 to B814, ¶0046 “integrating information indicating a three-dimensional shape of a surface of the target and two-dimensional information such as colors, characters or figures attached on the surface of the target.”).
Kutaragi discloses detection by the robot but not a discrete “operation detecting unit” that among other actions detects that the robot stops.
Takahashi discloses a robot control system (fig. 1) that utilizes two-dimensional with three-dimensional imaging control (¶0032) and an operation detecting unit that among other actions can detect the robot stopping (¶0014, fig. 2 at 31 & 33). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been known to upgrade the robot control system of Kutaragi with the discrete operation detecting unit that can detect robot stoppage of Takahashi. A motivation for this upgrade would be to ensure better control of the robots movement. This combination also follows the KSR case law rationale for obviousness A; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7 (as best understood) Kutaragi discloses (fig. 8) a robot device comprising: the controller of claim 1; and a three-dimensional vision sensor (¶0078) including a two-dimensional camera (¶0109 cameras 123 & 124 “acquires two-dimensional data indicating two-dimensional appearance…imaging results of the target…associating the three-dimensional data with the two-dimensional data”) configured to capture an image of an object; and a robot.
Claim 8 (as best understood) Kutaragi discloses the robot device of claim 7, wherein the three-dimensional vision sensor is attached to the robot (figure 1 & 8), and the object is an object (“target”) arranged around the robot.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutaragi in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamon et al (US2024/0042620).
Neither Kutaragi nor Takahashi discloses that their robot system can be manually controlled by an operator.
Kamon discloses a robotic control system that utilizes manual control by an operator where the operator can manually stop the robot (figures 1 & 4, ¶0113, ¶0132 to 0133). At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been well known to have the device of Kutaragi in view of Takahashi be able to manually control the robot movement by an operator. A motivation for this improvement to Kutaragi would be to provide flexibility for operation of the system. This combination also follows the KSR case law rationale for obviousness D; applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutaragi in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al (US2020/0273194).
Neither Kutaragi nor Takahashi discloses that the exposure condition is at least one selected from a group of an exposure time of the two- dimensional camera and an amount of light of an illumination device.
Yoshida discloses a robotic control system where the exposure condition is an exposure time of a two- dimensional camera. At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been well known to have the device of Kutaragi in view of Takahashi with an exposure condition that is an exposure time of a two- dimensional camera. A motivation for this improvement to Kutaragi would be to provide clearer image quality. This combination also follows the KSR case law rationale for obviousness A; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutaragi in view of Takahashi as applied to claim 7 and 1 above, and further in view of Ban et al (US2005/0107920).
Kutaragi discloses a work tool (“a gripper”) attached to the robot (¶0124), but not that wherein the three-dimensional vision sensor is fixed by a support member at a predetermined position, and the object is the work tool.
Ban discloses a robot controller (figures 2, 6, 7 & 8) with a work tool (figures 2 & 8 at 1d) attached to a robot, wherein the three-dimensional vision sensor (“vision sensor 3”) is fixed by a support member at a predetermined position (fig. 2), and the object is the work tool. At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to improve the device of Kutaragi by connecting a three-dimensional vision sensor to the support member as taught by Ban. A motivation for this equipment arrangement would be to have important operational equipment centrally located. This combination follows the KSR case law rationale for obviousness A; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658