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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to: an original application filed on 18 November 2024.
2. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and claims 1 and 16 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 November 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Pre-Amendment
4. preliminary amended has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings filed on 18 November 2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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:
9. “unit configured to enable an operation” (claim 1), “steps of: accepting connection with wireless operation device”, “accepting connection with wired operation device”, “enable operation content” (claim 16)
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 § 112
10. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and
of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint
inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and
process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
13. Regarding claim 1, Claim limitation “an authentication unit configured to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
14. Regarding claim 16, Claim limitation steps of:
“accepting connection with a wireless operation device”, “accepting connection with a wired operation device”, “enabling an operation content for the wireless operation device”. invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
the function. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there
are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any
means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is
indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation
under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what
structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any
new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure,
material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without
introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already
implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links
them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure,
material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the
corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Depending claims are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C §103 as being unpatentable over Daigo Adachi (JP Publication No. 2017030077), hereinafter Adachi and in view of Murphy et al. (WO Publication No. 2014127822), hereinafter Murphy.
Regarding claim 1:
a wireless operation device that is connected to a control device of a robot or an industrial machine via wireless communication, and is able to command a motion of the robot or the industrial machine to the control device (Adachi, page 3, para.2), wherein TP2 connected to Robot Controller (RC) via wireless communication via access point (AP). Please, also see Adachi, FIG.1.
a wired operation device that is removably attached to the wireless operation device, is connected to the control device via wired communication, and is able to transmit a signal to the control device (Adachi, page 2, para.5 page 3, para.1), wherein TP1 is connected to the robot control device RC, a wired communication connection via cable C. And TP1 is also attachable/detachable. Please, also see Adachi, FIG.1.
Adachi does not explicitly suggest, and an authentication unit configured to enable an operation content for the wireless operation device. However, in a same field of endeavor Murphy discloses this limitation (Murphy, Fig.4, component 40, page 15, para.3), wherein, authorization module 40 configured to check credentials received from the client devices. The authentication module 40 is configured to provide authentication check of the credentials, i.e. to validate the credential in order to confirm that the person sending the request to the controller is the correct person and if they are authorized. The session handler 38 is configured to deny the request if the authentication check of the credentials was not successful and to grant the request provided that the check was successful when a first operation on the wired operation device and a second operation on the wireless operation device are accepted simultaneously or in a predetermined order (Adachi, page 7, para.3), wherein, the robot control unit 12 determines whether or not an enable signal is input. Specifically, when the robot R is in the “operation ready state”, the robot controller RC accepts an input of an enable signal from the wired teach pendant TP1 or the wireless teach pendant TP2 for which communication connection is established. When the operator inputs the teaching content of the robot R, a predetermined operation is performed
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the method of multiple connection (wired and wireless) with robot controller of Adachi with the authentication and permission mechanism disclosed in Murphy to ensure safe and secure access, stated by Murphy at page 8, para.1.
Regarding claim 2:
wherein the wireless operation device does not command a motion of the robot or the industrial machine to the control device when the wired operation device and the wireless operation device are in a non-operation state (Adachi, page 5, para.1).
Regarding claim 3:
Adachi does not explicitly suggest, wherein the authentication unit enables an operation content for the wireless operation device; however, in a same field of endeavor Murphy discloses this limitation (Murphy, Fig.4, component 40, page 15, para.3), when the first operation and the second operation are accepted simultaneously or in a predetermined order after a non-operation state of the wired operation device and the wireless operation device (Adachi, page 7, para.3).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Adachi and Murphy applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4:
Adachi does not explicitly suggest, wherein the authentication unit disables an operation content for the wireless operation device, however, in a same field of endeavor Murphy discloses this limitation (Murphy, Fig.4, component 40, page 15, para.3); when acceptance of the first operation or the second operation ends after an operation content for the wireless operation device is enabled by the first operation and the second operation being accepted simultaneously or in a predetermined order (Adachi, page 7, para.3).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Adachi and Murphy applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5:
wherein the wireless operation device further includes an indicator that displays a screen for prompting the second operation when the first operation is accepted after a non-operation state of the wired operation device and the wireless operation device, and an operation content for the wireless operation device is enabled when the second operation is accepted while the screen is displayed on the indicator (Adachi, page 7, para.3).
Regarding claim 6:
wherein the second operation is an operation of pressing an enabling button displayed on a touch panel for display and input being the indicator (Adachi, page 6, para.3).
Regarding claim 7:
wherein the second operation is an operation of pressing an activation icon that is displayed on a touch panel for display and input being the indicator and is used for activating an application software program for controlling the control device (Adachi, page 18, para.3).
Regarding claim 8:
wherein the second operation is an operation of pressing a hardware switch provided in the wireless operation device (Adachi, page 2, para.3).
Regarding claim 9:
wherein the second operation is an operation of moving a position and/or a posture of the wireless operation device, and the wireless operation device further includes a sensor for detecting that a position and/or a posture of the wireless operation device is moved (Adachi, page 9. Para.3).
Regarding claim 10:
Adachi does not explicitly suggest, wherein the authentication unit disables an operation content for the wireless operation device (Murphy, Fig.4, component 40, page 15, para.3) when a third operation on the wireless operation device is accepted after an operation content for the wireless operation device is enabled by the first operation and the second operation being accepted simultaneously or in a predetermined order (Adachi, page 7, para.3).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Adachi and Murphy applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11:
wherein the authentication unit disables an operation content for the wireless operation device when a predetermined period of time has elapsed since an operation content for the wireless operation device has been enabled by the first operation and the second operation being accepted simultaneously or in a predetermined order (Adachi, page 19, para.1-2).
Regarding claim 12:
wherein the wired operation device includes an enable switch that permits control of a motion of the robot or the industrial machine by the control device while pressing is performed, and does not permit control of a motion of the robot or the industrial machine by the control device when pressing is released (Adachi, page 4, para.2-4).
Regarding claim 13:
wherein the first operation is an operation of pressing the enable switch (Adachi, page 3, para.2).
Regarding claim 14:
Adachi does not explicitly suggest, wherein the wired operation device includes an authentication button, and the first operation is an operation of pressing the authentication button; however, in a same field of endeavor Murphy discloses this limitation (Murphy, Fig.4, component 40).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Adachi and Murphy applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15:
Adachi does not explicitly suggest, wherein the authentication unit is provided in any of the wireless operation device, the wired operation device, and the control device; however, in a same field of endeavor Murphy discloses this limitation (Murphy, page 15, para.3).
Same motivation for combining the respective features of Adachi and Murphy applies herein, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. 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 –
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-21 are rejected 35 U.S.C §102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Adachi.
Regarding claim 16:
A method comprising the steps of: accepting connection with a wireless operation device that is able to transmit a command related to a motion of a robot or an industrial machine (Adachi, page 7, para.3, page 21, para.5), when the robot R is in the “operation ready state”, the robot controller RC accepts an input of an enable signal from the wired teach pendant TP1 or the wireless teach pendant TP2 for which communication connection is established and The robot control device is in an operable state in which the robot can be operated based on information transmitted from the portable operation device when the wireless access point device executes the channel change function in response to the external signal. Determine whether or not.
accepting connection with a wired operation device that is removably attached to the wireless operation device (Adachi, page 2, para.3, page 3, para.1, Fig.1), wherein, the wired teach pendant TP1 is configured to be attachable to and detachable from the robot control device RC. When the wired teach pendant TP1 is connected to the robot control device RC, a wired communication connection is established.
and enabling an operation content for the wireless operation device when a first operation on the wired operation device and a second operation on the wireless operation device are accepted simultaneously or in a predetermined order (Adachi, page 7, para.3), wherein, the robot control unit 12 determines whether or not an enable signal is input. Specifically, when the robot R is in the “operation ready state”, the robot controller RC accepts an input of an enable signal from the wired teach pendant TP1 or the wireless teach pendant TP2 for which communication connection is established. When the operator inputs the teaching content of the robot R, a predetermined operation is performed
Regarding claim 17:
wherein the enabling step further includes disabling an operation content for the wireless operation device when acceptance of the first operation or the second operation ends after an operation content for the wireless operation device is enabled by the first operation and the second operation being accepted simultaneously or in a predetermined order (Adachi, page 4, para.4).
Regarding claim 18:
wherein the second operation is at least any of an operation of pressing an enabling button displayed on an indicator, an operation of pressing an activation icon that is displayed on the indicator and is used for activating an application software program (Adachi, page 7, para 3), an operation of pressing a hardware switch provided in the wireless operation device, and an operation of moving a position and/or a posture of the wireless operation device, and the first operation is an operation of pressing an enable switch provided in the wired operation device, or an operation of pressing an authentication button (Adachi, page 3, para 2).
Regarding claim 19:
further comprising: a step of displaying, on the indicator, a screen for prompting the second operation when the first operation is accepted; and enabling an operation content for the wireless operation device when the second operation is accepted while the screen is displayed on the indicator (Adachi, page 7, para.3, page 10, para.4).
Regarding claim 20:
A control device comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor executes the method according to claim 16 (Adachi, page 3, para.4).
Regarding claim 21:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for causing at least one computer to execute the method according to claim 16 (Adachi, page 3, para.4).
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Monjour Rahim whose telephone number is (571)270-3890.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or CANANDA) or 571-272-1000.
/Monjur Rahim/
Patent Examiner
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Art Unit: 2436; Phone: 571.270.3890
E-mail: monjur.rahim@uspto.gov
Fax: 571.270.4890