Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A, claims 1-7 drawn to a robot programming device in the reply filed on August 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-15 are thus withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a robot programming teaching unit” and “a code conversion unit” in claim 1;
“a three-dimensional model arrangement unit” in claim 2;
“a work target specification unit” and “a work program generation unit” in claim 4; and
“a file output unit” in claim 6.
According to the specification, “FIG. 3 illustrates functional block diagrams of the robot programming device 80 and the robot controller 50. As illustrated in FIG. 3, the robot programming device 80 includes a virtual space creation unit 181, a three-dimensional model arrangement unit 182, a robot program teaching unit 183, a code conversion unit 184, and a file output unit 185” [0022]. Further, “FIG. 12 illustrates functional block diagrams of a robot programming device 80A and a robot controller 50 according to the second embodiment. In FIG. 12, a functional block being the same as a functional block according to the first embodiment is given the same sign. As a configuration for automatically generating a robot program dependent on a workpiece, a robot program teaching unit 183A in the robot programming device 80A according to the second embodiment includes a work target specification unit 186 and a work program generation unit 187” [0053]. Then, as further defined in the specification, “Functional blocks in a functional block diagram exemplified as a diagram illustrating a functional configuration of the robot programming device or the robot controller in the embodiments described above may be provided by executing various types of software stored in the storage device by the processor in the robot programming device or the robot controller or may be provided by a configuration mainly based on hardware such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)” [0083]. Thus, each of the robot programming teaching unit, code conversion unit, three-dimensional model arrangement unit, work target specification unit, work program generation unit, and file output unit will be considered as any such processor which executes the designated function, and/or any such functional equivalent thereof will be considered pertinent when reviewing the prior art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daisuke et al. (JP 2008/207262 A1; hereinafter “Daisuke” -- Translation attached in previous file mailed out on July 2, 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Daisuke discloses a robot programming device comprising:
a robot program teaching unit configured to perform teaching of a robot program (Paragraphs [0022-0023] describe a process performed by the central processing unit, i.e., robot program teaching unit, which performs teaching of a robot program.); and
a code conversion unit configured to convert information for identifying the taught robot program into a code (“When the assembly operation of the object to be assembled by the manipulator 10 is performed as smoothly as if by a human, and when it is properly assembled (S4,S5), the central processing unit 11 transmits teaching operation information with a unique teaching information code and the above teaching work status information to the storage unit 15 of the manipulator operation system 1, and stores it in the storage unit 15 (S6)” [0024]. Thus, the central processing unit further performs the function of a code conversion unit which converts the information identifying a successfully taught robot program into a unique teaching information code. Such a teaching information code may be read from an IC tag as described in Paragraph [0038].).
Regarding claim 3, Daisuke discloses the robot programming device according to claim 1,
wherein the robot program is a program having a property dependent on a workpiece being a work target (As described in Paragraphs [0012-0013], the taught robot program is one which depends on a specific assembled object, i.e., workpiece, being the work target.).
Regarding claim 4, Daisuke discloses the robot programming device according to claim 3,
wherein the robot program teaching unit includes:
a work target specification unit configured to accept an operation for specifying, based on a geometric characteristic of a workpiece model, a work target part on the workpiece model (“The system may include a reader that reads dimensional information of the assembled object from an IC tag attached to the assembled object, and the motion control unit may modify the movement of the manipulator based on the taught operation information using the read dimensional information” [0013]. Thus, there is a “reader” which performs the function of reading dimensional information of the assembled object, i.e., specifies a work target part on the workpiece model based on a geometric characteristic of a workpiece model. The motion control unit is then the functional equivalent of a work target specification unit which accepts this “read” operation for specifying the work target part by modifying the taught operation according to the read dimensional information of the workpiece.); and
a work program generation unit configured to generate a robot program for performing work by a work tool on the specified work target part (“The manipulator control system 1 for operating the manipulator 10 consists of the manipulator 10 which handles the workpiece 9 with a highly flexible hand” [0018]. “For example, when a single manipulator 10 performs assembly of multiple types of products in small-batch production of various products, the teaching operation information for each type is stored in the storage means 15. As shown in Figure 8, the corresponding teaching operation information is retrieved from the storage means 15 based on a unique teaching information code read from the IC tag 3, and the manipulator 10 is operated based on that teaching operation information” [0038]. Thus, there is further a functional equivalent for the work program generation unit installed within the code retrieval system which generates the robot program, i.e., teaching operation information, for performing assembly work by the work tool, i.e., flexible hand which handles the workpiece, on the specified work target part which is inclusive of the IC code as described above.).
Regarding claim 6, Daisuke discloses the robot programming device according to claim l, further comprising
a file output unit configured to output the code generated by the code conversion unit as a file (“At this time, the teaching device 20 measures the above operation, and based on this measurement, the operation information generation unit 21 generates time-stamped teaching operation information (S1), transmits the teaching operation information to the storage unit 15 of the manipulator operating system 1, and stores it in the storage unit 15 (S2)” [0022]. “This involves the central processing unit 11 acquiring teaching operation information from the storage unit 15 (S32), generating a target motion trajectory from this teaching operation information (S33), and the manipulator control unit 12 controlling and driving the manipulator 10 based on the obtained target motion trajectory (S34), performing this for each timestamp of the teaching operation information to test whether the manipulator 10 can assemble the object to be assembled. During this test, the teaching work state information generation unit 24 generates timestamped teaching work state information (S35) from measured values regarding the position and orientation of the manipulator and the object to be assembled, obtained from the work state recognition device 13 while the manipulator 10 is being controlled” [0023]. Thus, the operation information generation unit generates time-stamped teaching operation information which is transmitted to the storage unit. From there, the central processing unit performs the equivalent function to the file output unit, as the central processing unit is configured to output the code generated by the code conversion unit to identify the stored teaching operation as a time-stamped motion trajectory which is the complete collection of data as a program which is treated by the central processing unit as a single entity for the purpose of operation output, i.e., file.).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke in view of Yoneyama (US 2021/0101282 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Daisuke teaches the robot programming device according to claim 1…
However, Daisuke does not explicitly teach …a three-dimensional model arrangement unit configure to arrange, in a virtual space, a robot system model including a robot model three-dimensionally expressing a robot system including a robot,
wherein the robot program teaching unit is configured to accept teaching of the robot program by an operation on the robot system model.
Yoneyama, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …a three-dimensional model arrangement unit configure to arrange, in a virtual space, a robot system model including a robot model three-dimensionally expressing a robot system including a robot (“One aspect of a robot system according to the present disclosure is configured to be a robot system including a simulation device configured to place virtual models including at least a virtual robot model on a screen, display the virtual model simultaneously with a real equipment including at least a real robot, and perform teaching and simulation of a robot program, the simulation device including a virtual model display unit configured to place virtual models in a virtual space on a screen and display the virtual models simultaneously with real equipment” [0011]. Thus, the simulation device is a functional equivalent of the three-dimensional model arrangement unit as it is configured to place at least a virtual robot model, i.e., arrange a robot system model in a virtual space, including a robot model which three-dimensionally expresses the “real equipment”, i.e., a robot system including a robot. See Fig. 3 as an example of the three-dimensionally displayed virtual model.),
wherein the robot program teaching unit is configured to accept teaching of the robot program by an operation on the robot system model (“One aspect of a robot system according to the present disclosure is configured to be a robot system including … a robot program teaching unit configured to perform teaching of a robot program in the virtual space; a real space virtual model display unit configured to display the virtual models and teaching points of the robot program in a real space, based on a positional relationship in the virtual space; and virtual model placement position correcting unit configured to correct placement positions of the virtual models to match the real equipment in the real space” [0011]. Thus, the robot program teaching unit is the functional equivalent to the robot program teaching unit of the claimed invention as it is configured to perform teaching of a robot program in virtual space, i.e., accepts teaching of the robot program by an operation on the robot system model (virtual robot model).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching methods of Daisuke to further include the virtual model teaching methods of Yoneyama with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the virtual system of Yoneyama allows automatic correction of a robot program onsite and simulated verifications (Yoneyama, [0012]), thereby increasing performance efficiency in translating the taught robot program to real space operations.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke in view of Hama (US 2022/0331972 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Daisuke teaches the robot programming device according to claim l…
However, Daisuke does not explicitly teach …wherein the code conversion unit adds, as additional information, information for identifying a robot by which the robot program is executed, to the information for identifying the robot program and converts the information for identifying the robot program to which the additional information is added into a code.
Hama, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches a robot program teaching method which includes a selection of a designated robot model to perform the executed teaching function which is then stored as a registered teaching point and further a control program corresponding to the designated robot model (Fig. 7 shows the method which results in S130 of registering the designated teaching point for the specified robot model. See [0037-0038] which selects the robot model before performing the teaching operation. See also [0034] which designates “robot attribute data” corresponding to the plurality of robot models stored in memory as well as robot control programs stored in memory. Paragraph [0054] describes the process for storing the taught robot control program in memory such that the robot may reproduce the taught operation.).
Examiner ascertains that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the code conversion unit as taught by Daisuke for converting information identifying the taught robot program into a code (see rejection of claim 1) to further include the model information according to the system of Hama which comprises a plurality of robot models to perform teaching such that when the taught robot program is stored as a code, the code further identifies the robot by which the robot program is executed. This modification is a mere combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because for a system with a plurality of robot models which are being taught (Hama), including such model identification information in the taught robot program stored as a code will lead to efficient recall and instruction for a particular robot to perform the designated robot program according to the teaching information for the particular workpiece which is presented at the robot assembly station.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke in view of Nagatsuka et al. (US 2006/0015218 A1; hereinafter “Nagatsuka”).
Regarding claim 7, Daisuke teaches the robot programming device according to claim l…
Daisuke does not explicitly teach …wherein the information for identifying the robot program is one of a program name and a program ID of the robot program.
Nagatsuka, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the information for identifying the robot program is one of a program name and a program ID of the robot program (“According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a robot controller for calling a teaching program related to a workpiece from a plurality of stored teaching programs, and causing a robot to carry out a job in accordance with the called teaching program, which includes a storage means for storing a plurality of teaching programs having registered therein identification information indicating the type of the workpiece as attribute information; a teaching program retrieving means for retrieving all teaching programs having registered therein, as attribute information, the same identification information as a designated identification information, based on the designated identification information, from the plurality of teaching programs stored in the storage means” [0009]. Thus, each teaching program includes an attribute, i.e., information, for identifying the robot program which is one of a program ID of the robot program stored amongst a plurality of robot programs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the information for identifying the robot program as taught by Daisuke to include the attributes which are a program ID of a robot program as taught by Nagatsuka with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by storing the teaching program with a specific attribute which is a program ID corresponding to a part number and sequence order, the time to sufficiently code programs which repeat for batch assembly processes including similar parts is reduced as the teaching process need only be repeated for sufficiently new parts introduced to the operation (Nagatsuka, [0028]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/841,674 (hereinafter ‘674). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
‘674 teaches a robot programming device (“an information processing device”) comprising:
a robot program teaching unit configured to perform teaching of a robot program (“a processor configured to … perform teaching to the robot system model based on a user input”); and
a code conversion unit configured to convert information for identifying the taught robot program into a code (“a processor configured to … convert the robot program generated by the teaching into a code including information about a command sentence, a motion sentence, and a teaching position of the robot program”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 11,763,115 teaches a robotic system which prints QR codes for subareas of workspace.
US 2017/0341229 A1 teaches a stocker robot which reads QR codes off of a teaching jig.
US 2020/00306981 A1 teaches a robotic assembler which acquires assembly information from a QR code attached to the construction element.
US 2025/0162145 A1 corresponds to copending application No. 18/841,674 used for the double patenting rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights