DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This Non-final communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 and 04/21/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites the following limitation, “… one or a plurality of programs handling a specific workpiece …”. The aforementioned limitation (in bold) does not clearly state what the term “specific” refers to. The term “specific” is further not supported in the specification as there are no examples or definitions to clarify its contextual meaning. The examiner is interpreting this limitation as “… one or a plurality of programs handling a […”. This interpretation will be used for the purpose of examination. Appropriate corrections are requested.
Claim 12 recites the following limitation, “… one or a plurality of programs used in a work process on a specific day …”. The aforementioned limitation (in bold) does not clearly state what the term “specific day” refers to. The term “specific day” is further not supported in the specification as there are no examples or definitions to clarify its contextual meaning. The examiner is interpreting this limitation as “… one or a plurality of programs used in a work process [
Claim 13 recites the following limitation, “… one or a plurality of programs to be executed at a specific workplace …”. The aforementioned limitation (in bold) does not clearly state what the term “specific” refers to. The term “specific” is further not supported in the specification as there are no examples or definitions to clarify its contextual meaning. The examiner is interpreting this limitation as “… one or a plurality of programs to be executed at a [ …”. This interpretation will be used for the purpose of examination. Appropriate corrections are requested.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “specific” as used in the limitations of claims 11-13 (see Claim Objections above) is not supported by the specification. The term does not appear in the specification in any form by definition or example.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) are:
Claim 1:
[Image Acquisition Unit] Prong1: image acquisition unit; Prong 2: configured to acquire a captured image; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. Specification: Page 4, Line 26 to Line 29; The image capture unit 32 may be configured to acquire an image captured by an external camera. The function of the image capture unit 32 may be described as an image acquisition unit acquiring a captured image of a target object.
Claims 1 and 6:
[Recognition Unit] Prong1: recognition unit; Prong 2: configured to recognize; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. Specification: Page 9, Line 32 to Line 35; The arithmetic processing device 31A further includes a recognition unit 131A, a registration unit 132A, a search unit 133A, a search result output unit 134A, and a program acquisition unit 135. The functional blocks may be provided by executing software by the processor in the arithmetic processing device 31A.
Claims 1, 3, and 5:
[Registration Unit] Prong1: registration unit; Prong 2: configured to generate and store, … correspondence information; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. Specification: Page 9, Line 32 to Line 35; The arithmetic processing device 31A further includes a recognition unit 131A, a registration unit 132A, a search unit 133A, a search result output unit 134A, and a program acquisition unit 135. The functional blocks may be provided by executing software by the processor in the arithmetic processing device 31A.
Claims 4, 6, and 10:
[Search Unit] Prong1: search unit; Prong 2: configured to search; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. Specification: Page 9, Line 32 to Line 35; The arithmetic processing device 31A further includes a recognition unit 131A, a registration unit 132A, a search unit 133A, a search result output unit 134A, and a program acquisition unit 135. The functional blocks may be provided by executing software by the processor in the arithmetic processing device 31A.
Claim 10:
[Program Acquisition Unit] Prong1: program acquisition unit; Prong 2: configured to acquire a program; Prong 3: Sufficient structure not recited. Specification: Page 9, Line 32 to Line 35; The arithmetic processing device 31A further includes a recognition unit 131A, a registration unit 132A, a search unit 133A, a search result output unit 134A, and a program acquisition unit 135. The functional blocks may be provided by executing software by the processor in the arithmetic processing device 31A.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system or method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to storage medium Claim 14. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A teaching device used for teaching of an industrial machine, the teaching device comprising: an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a captured image of a visually recognizable recognition target; a recognition unit configured to recognize the recognition target by analyzing the acquired image; and a registration unit configured to generate and store, in accordance with a user operation, correspondence information associating the recognized recognition target with a program.
which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process (concept performed in the human mind) to acquire a captured image, recognize a recognition target, and generate and store correspondence information. One of ordinary skill in the art could acquire an image of a recognition target, recognize its pattern and then generate a set of correspondence information associated with the recognition target.
Similarly, if a claim limitation under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63; “Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F. 3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702. (Fed. Cir. 2015.))
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A teaching device used for teaching of an industrial machine, the teaching device comprising: an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a captured image of a visually recognizable recognition target; a recognition unit configured to recognize the recognition target by analyzing the acquired image; and a registration unit configured to generate and store, in accordance with a user operation, correspondence information associating the recognized recognition target with a program.
The image acquisition unit, recognition unit and registration unit in Claim 1 are just using generic computer components. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on or with the use of generic computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan (US 20210201183 A1) as modified by Borgert (US 20240013905 A1)
Claim 1:
Natarajan teaches the following limitations:
A teaching device used for teaching of an industrial machine, the teaching device comprising: ( Natarajan - [0018] The present disclosure provides an apparatus and an imitation learning methodology for efficiently and simultaneously training multiple robots for collaborative tasks … ) an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a captured image of a visually recognizable recognition target; ( Natarajan - [0030] Camera array 312 can include any of a variety of cameras (e.g., video cameras, still cameras, IR cameras, ArUco reader cameras, RFID reader cameras, or the like) provided cameras of camera array 312 are arranged to read, scan, or otherwise capture markers 314. The cameras within camera array 312 can be placed in the real world environment in which the demonstration is to take place …) a recognition unit configured to recognize the recognition target by analyzing the acquired image; and ( Natarajan - [0031] In general, computing devices 302 is coupled to camera array 312 and arranged to receive information, data, or images 318 from camera array 312 and to generate imitation learning dataset 324 with which an ML model (e.g., ML model 500, or the like) can be trained. Computing device 302 includes processor 304, memory 306, input and/or output (I/O) devices 308, and network interface 310.)
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
a registration unit configured to generate and store, in accordance with a user operation, correspondence information associating the recognized recognition target with a program.
(Borgert - [0020] The following discloses systems and methods for connectionless data transmission by leveraging a displayed visual pattern, such as a matrix barcode, to visually transfer the information generated at the defining device to the execution device. In the illustrative embodiments, a two-dimensional Quick Response (QR) code and/or a one-dimensional Universal Product Code (UPC) barcode is used as the visual pattern. ; [0022] The execution device is equipped with a camera capable of capturing an image of the QR code displayed on the display of the defining device, and is programmed to decode the imaged QR code using the standard QR decoding scheme.; {See also Figure 1])
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for the introduction of a camera-based and wireless data transfer method. This wireless method provides a secure and compact system of transferring data which further compliments the use of networked machines.
Claim 2:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 1, wherein the recognition target is an identification code.
(Borgert - [0020] The following discloses systems and methods for connectionless data transmission by leveraging a displayed visual pattern, such as a matrix barcode, to visually transfer the information generated at the defining device to the execution device. In the illustrative embodiments, a two-dimensional Quick Response (QR) code and/or a one-dimensional Universal Product Code (UPC) barcode is used as the visual pattern.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for the introduction of a camera-based and wireless data transfer method. This wireless method provides a secure and compact system of transferring data which further compliments the use of networked machines.
Claim 3:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 1, wherein the registration unit stores the correspondence information into a storage unit in the teaching device.
(Borgert- [0034] … As shown in FIG. 1, the system 10 includes a defining device or apparatus 12 and an execution device or apparatus 14. … The defining device 12 includes typical mobile device components, such as an electronic processor 16, a display 18, and at least one user input device 20 (e.g., a touchscreen to receive user inputs via which the user can swipe with a finger). The defining device 12 also includes a data storage 39 storing instructions for execution information on the defining device to execute a task by the execution device 14. A camera 23 is configured to acquire one or more images.)
Examiner’s Note:
Defining Device corresponds to Teaching Device
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program and further storing it in the defining device as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to store and transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for the introduction of a camera-based and wireless data transfer method. This wireless method provides a secure and compact system of transferring data which further compliments the use of networked machines.
Claim 4:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 3, further comprising: a search unit configured to search for, by using the correspondence information, a program corresponding to the recognition target recognized by the recognition unit; and a search result output unit configured to output a search result by the search unit.
(Borgert- [0021] … The defining device further includes a display. When the user wants to transfer the information to the execution device, the defining device is further programmed to retrieve the stored information from the non-transitory data storage, generate a QR code (or other spatial pattern) encoding the retrieved information in accordance with the OR encoding scheme standard, and display the generated QR code on the display of the defining device.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program and being able to search for the program as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to search for and transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for the introduction of a camera-based and wireless data transfer method. This wireless method provides a secure and compact system of transferring data which further compliments the use of networked machines.
Claim 5:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 1, wherein the registration unit transmits the correspondence information to an external server and causes the server to store the correspondence information.
(Borgert – [0042] … The execution information can be stored in the data storage 39 (see FIG. 1) of the mobile device 12 (or in an associated cloud data storage accessed by the defining device 12 via a Wi-Fi network, 4G or other cellular network or the like), for example by pressing an illustrative “Save” button presented on the UI 24 shown in FIG. 3 Part A. It will be appreciated that the data entry interface can be provided at operation 102 at any location, e.g. while the user of the mobile device 12 is not near to the imaging device 26. For example, operation 102 can be performed while the user is at home, or in a medical office, or so forth. By saving the entered execution information in the data storage 39 of the mobile device 12 (or in a cloud storage linked to the mobile device 12) …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program and further storing it to a server as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to store and transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for the introduction of a camera-based and wireless data transfer method. This wireless method provides a secure and compact system of transferring data which further compliments the use of networked machines.
Claim 6:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 5, further comprising: a search unit configured to transmit information indicating the recognition target recognized by the recognition unit to the server and acquire, from the server, a search result of searching for, in the server, a program corresponding to the recognition target by using the correspondence information; and a search result output unit configured to output the search result by the search unit.
(Borgert - [0021] … the defining device is programmed to store the information generated at the defining device at a non-transitory data storage of (or accessible by) the defining device. The defining device further includes a display. When the user wants to transfer the information to the execution device, the defining device is further programmed to retrieve the stored information from the non-transitory data storage, generate a QR code (or other spatial pattern) encoding the retrieved information in accordance with the OR encoding scheme standard, and display the generated QR code on the display of the defining device. ; [0026] A bidirectional information transfer is also disclosed. This requires additionally providing a display at the execution device and further programming to encode and display QR codes at the execution device, and a camera at the defining device and further programming to decode the QR code presented by the execution device….)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program and further storing it to a server as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to store and transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for the introduction of a camera-based and wireless data transfer method. This wireless method provides a secure and compact system of transferring data which further compliments the use of networked machines.
Claim 7:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 4, wherein, when, as the search result, one program corresponding to the recognized recognition target is retrieved, the search result output unit automatically selects the one retrieved program as a program to be executed.
(Borgert - [0043] At an operation 104 performed at the defining device 12, at least one graphical (or audio) pattern 42 is constructed to encode the execution information. At an operation 106, a trigger input is received at the defining device 12 to transfer the stored execution information in the graphical pattern 42 to the execution device 14. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of automatically selecting the program to be triggered as associated with a recognition target (such as a QR code) as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to store, retrieve, transfer and trigger a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for seamless and efficient processing of control commands which originate from a recognition target.
Claim 9:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 4, wherein, when a program related to the recognized recognition target is not retrieved, the search result output unit displays, on a display unit, information indicating that a program corresponding to the recognition target is not registered.
(Borgert - [0051] In the illustrative example of FIG. 3 Part D, after displaying the graphical pattern 42 for a predetermined time as shown in FIG. 3 PART B (e.g. displaying the QR code 42 for 5 seconds, 10 seconds, or so forth), the UI 24 of the defining device 12 then switches to the dialog shown in FIG. 3 Part D, which provides the user with follow-up selection buttons. A “Repeat transfer” button can be pressed by the user if the camera 28 failed to capture the graphical pattern 42 for some reason (such as, the user failing to hold up the mobile device 12 in front of the webcam 28, or doing so after the QR code has ceased to be displayed). An “Erase configuration” button is provided to allow the user to erase the execution information (e.g. scan settings) that were entered into the mobile device 12 at FIG. 3 Part A. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of alerting the operator as to whether a recognition target was recognized and or registered as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to notify the operator as to the status of the requested program allows the operator to react more quickly to potential issues with program implementation.
Claim 10:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 6, further comprising a program acquisition unit configured to acquire a program corresponding to the recognition target from the server when a program corresponding to the recognition target retrieved by the search unit does not exist in a robot controller connected to the teaching device.
(Borgert - [0005] In one aspect, a non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions executable by a defining device having an electronic processor, a display, and at least one user input device to cause the defining device to perform a method for offline entry of execution information to be used by an associated execution device in executing a task. The method includes: providing a user interface (UI) for receiving execution information via the at least one user input device of the defining device and for storing the execution information on the defining device or on an associated data storage accessed by the defining device via an electronic network; constructing at least one graphical pattern encoding the execution information; receiving a trigger input to transfer the stored execution information to the associated execution device; and after receiving the trigger input, displaying the at least one graphical pattern encoding the execution information on the display of the defining device. ; [0017] FIG. 1 diagrammatically shows an illustrative apparatus for secure transmission of execution information (e.g. imaging device configuration data) from a mobile device (e.g. cellphone) to an execution device (e.g. imaging device controller).)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of providing a program originating from the defining device (teaching device) when a program is not present on the executing device(robot controller) as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers from the defining device provides an additional source of programming when a program does not exist on the controller of the executing machine, thus providing programming flexibility .
Claim 11:
Natarajan teaches the following limitations:
The teaching device according to claim 4, wherein one or a plurality of programs handling a specific workpiece are associated with the recognition target in the correspondence information.
(Natarajan - [0043] Processor 304 further executes instructions 316 to identify object layout 336, including the type and pose of the objects that are to be manipulated by the robots (e.g., robots 102 and 104). In some examples, markers 314 can include subsets or multiple different types of markers. For example, one type of markers 314 can be used to mark robots while another type of markers 314 can be used to mark objects, …)
Claim 12:
Natarajan teaches the following limitations:
The teaching device according to claim 4, wherein one or a plurality of programs used in a work process on a specific day are associated with the recognition target in the correspondence information.
(Natarajan [0019] … For example, the present disclosure provides for collecting expert demonstrations via an array of cameras and markers attached to the expert demonstrator (e.g., demonstrators hands, or the like) as well as to the object(s) being manipulated. Markers tracked by the camera array are used to simultaneously acquire reference trajectories for training multiple separate robotic arms performing different roles in collaborative tasks, such as joint assembly of parts. …)
Examiner’s Note:
Wherein it is noted that the term “specific day” is not clearly defined or supported by the specification, the examiner has interpreted this claim as, “… one or a plurality of programs used in a work process [
Claim 13:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 4, wherein one or a plurality of programs to be executed at a specific workplace are associated with the recognition target in the correspondence information.
(Borgert - [0048] At an operation 114 performed at the execution device 26, the medical imaging device controller 30 configures the medical imaging device 26 to execute a medical imaging task in accordance with the extracted execution information. … In the example of FIG. 3 the operation 114 would entail configuring the scan settings for the upcoming MRI scan to the scan settings extracted from the QR code 42.; [0049] In some examples, the configuring operation 114 includes transmitting a status of the operator of the medical imaging device 26. For example, the medical imaging device controller 30 is configured to construct a graphical pattern encoding information about the medical imaging device 26 and/or about the medical imaging task, which can be displayed on the display device 36 of the controller.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program and workplace as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to match the recognition target and associated program to a designated work place increases the precision of the machines actions in the context of the working environment.
Claim 14:
Natarajan teaches the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computer, cause the processor to
(Natarajan – [0031] - Computing device 302 includes processor 304, memory 306, input and/or output (I/O) devices 308, and network interface 310 … ; [0033] The memory 306 may include logic, a portion of which includes arrays of integrated circuits, forming non-volatile memory to persistently store data or a combination of non-volatile memory and volatile memory. It is to be appreciated, that the memory 306 may be based on any of a variety of technologies. …) perform acquiring a captured image of a visually recognizable recognition target; ( Natarajan - [0030] Camera array 312 can include any of a variety of cameras (e.g., video cameras, still cameras, IR cameras, ArUco reader cameras, RFID reader cameras, or the like) provided cameras of camera array 312 are arranged to read, scan, or otherwise capture markers 314. The cameras within camera array 312 can be placed in the real world environment in which the demonstration is to take place …) recognizing the recognition target by analyzing the acquired image; and ( Natarajan - [0031] In general, computing devices 302 is coupled to camera array 312 and arranged to receive information, data, or images 318 from camera array 312 and to generate imitation learning dataset 324 with which an ML model (e.g., ML model 500, or the like) can be trained. Computing device 302 includes processor 304, memory 306, input and/or output (I/O) devices 308, and network interface 310.)
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
generating and storing, in accordance with a user operation, correspondence information associating the recognized recognition target with a program.
(Borgert - [0020] The following discloses systems and methods for connectionless data transmission by leveraging a displayed visual pattern, such as a matrix barcode, to visually transfer the information generated at the defining device to the execution device. In the illustrative embodiments, a two-dimensional Quick Response (QR) code and/or a one-dimensional Universal Product Code (UPC) barcode is used as the visual pattern. ; [0022] The execution device is equipped with a camera capable of capturing an image of the QR code displayed on the display of the defining device, and is programmed to decode the imaged QR code using the standard QR decoding scheme.; {See also Figure 1])
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a specific program as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for the introduction of a camera-based and wireless data transfer method. This wireless method provides a secure and compact system of transferring data which further compliments the use of networked machines.
Claim 15:
Natarajan teaches the following limitations:
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 14, the instructions further causing the processor to perform
(Natarajan – [0031] - Computing device 302 includes processor 304, memory 306, input and/or output (I/O) devices 308, and network interface 310 … ; [0033] The memory 306 may include logic, a portion of which includes arrays of integrated circuits, forming non-volatile memory to persistently store data or a combination of non-volatile memory and volatile memory. It is to be appreciated, that the memory 306 may be based on any of a variety of technologies. …)
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
storing the correspondence information into a storage unit in the computer in the generating and storing the correspondence information; (Borgert - [0020] The following discloses systems and methods for connectionless data transmission by leveraging a displayed visual pattern, such as a matrix barcode, to visually transfer the information generated at the defining device to the execution device. In the illustrative embodiments, a two-dimensional Quick Response (QR) code and/or a one-dimensional Universal Product Code (UPC) barcode is used as the visual pattern. ; [0022] The execution device is equipped with a camera capable of capturing an image of the QR code displayed on the display of the defining device, and is programmed to decode the imaged QR code using the standard QR decoding scheme.; {See also Figure 1]) searching for a program corresponding to the recognized recognition target by using the correspondence information; and (Borgert - [0021] … the defining device is programmed to store the information generated at the defining device at a non-transitory data storage of (or accessible by) the defining device. The defining device further includes a display. When the user wants to transfer the information to the execution device, the defining device is further programmed to retrieve the stored information from the non-transitory data storage, generate a QR code (or other spatial pattern) encoding the retrieved information in accordance with the OR encoding scheme standard, and display the generated QR code on the display of the defining device. ; [0026] A bidirectional information transfer is also disclosed. This requires additionally providing a display at the execution device and further programming to encode and display QR codes at the execution device, and a camera at the defining device and further programming to decode the QR code presented by the execution device….)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program and being able to search for the program as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to search for and transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for the introduction of a camera-based and wireless data transfer method. This wireless method provides a secure and compact system of transferring data which further compliments the use of networked machines.
Claim 16:
Natarajan teaches the following limitations:
The non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 14, the instructions further causing the processor to perform
(Natarajan – [0031] - Computing device 302 includes processor 304, memory 306, input and/or output (I/O) devices 308, and network interface 310 … ; [0033] The memory 306 may include logic, a portion of which includes arrays of integrated circuits, forming non-volatile memory to persistently store data or a combination of non-volatile memory and volatile memory. It is to be appreciated, that the memory 306 may be based on any of a variety of technologies. …)
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
transmitting the correspondence information to an external server and causing the server to store the correspondence information in the generating and storing the correspondence information; transmitting information indicating the recognized recognition target to the server and acquiring, from the server, a search result of searching for, in the server, a program corresponding to the recognition target by using the correspondence information; and outputting the acquired search result.
(Borgert - [0021] … the defining device is programmed to store the information generated at the defining device at a non-transitory data storage of (or accessible by) the defining device. The defining device further includes a display. When the user wants to transfer the information to the execution device, the defining device is further programmed to retrieve the stored information from the non-transitory data storage, generate a QR code (or other spatial pattern) encoding the retrieved information in accordance with the OR encoding scheme standard, and display the generated QR code on the display of the defining device. ; [0026] A bidirectional information transfer is also disclosed. This requires additionally providing a display at the execution device and further programming to encode and display QR codes at the execution device, and a camera at the defining device and further programming to decode the QR code presented by the execution device….)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program and further storing it to a server as taught in Borgert. Having the ability to store and transfer a program or other machine-specific information via graphical markers, allows for the introduction of a camera-based and wireless data transfer method. This wireless method provides a secure and compact system of transferring data which further compliments the use of networked machines.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natarajan (US 20210201183 A1) as modified by Borgert (US 20240013905 A1) in view of Watanabe (US 20060030970 A1)
Claim 8:
Natarajan does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Borgert teaches:
The teaching device according to claim 4, wherein, when, as the search result, a plurality of programs corresponding to the recognized recognition target are retrieved,
(Borgert - [0026] A bidirectional information transfer is also disclosed. This requires additionally providing a display at the execution device and further programming to encode and display QR codes at the execution device, and a camera at the defining device and further programming to decode the QR code presented by the execution device. If the defining device is a tablet or notebook computer or a cellphone then it likely already has a built-in camera, and a device such as an imaging device controller already has a display. …)
Natarajan in combination with Borgert does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Watanabe teaches:
the search result output unit displays a list of a plurality of retrieved programs on a display unit and accepts an operation for selecting one program from the list.
(Watanabe - [0054] … confirmation and correction is selected among a plurality of robot programs previously set in the robot 42. The selection of the program may be performed, for example, by an operator in such a manner as to call a list of the robot programs on a display screen and to designate the desired program thereon.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Natarajan to include a method of linking a recognition target (such as a QR code) to a designated program and being able to search for the program as taught in Borgert and to further list a plurality of program results as taught in Watanabe. Having the ability to search for and list a plurality of programs, allows for greater flexibility and efficiency when loading programs into the execution device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Jones (US 20170213062 A1) describes a system that, responsive to identifying the optical marker, image processing on the image can be performed to generate data corresponding to the machine readable optical label or alphanumeric characters. Whether the data corresponds to an intended cargo recipient of a cargo being carried by the delivery drone can be determined. Responsive to determining that the data corresponding to the machine readable optical label or alphanumeric characters corresponds to the intended cargo recipient of the cargo being carried by the delivery drone, the delivery drone can be initiated to deliver the cargo at a specific location indicated by the optical marker.
Tolstov (US 20210191414 A1) describes techniques for determining locations of a plurality of markers on a vehicle in three-dimensional space. The markers may be configured as optical or radio markers, where a sensor determines the locations of each of the plurality of markers, or a shape formed by the markers collectively. The locations of each of the plurality of markers or shape is then compared to a template to determine a match. The match identifies a vehicle having vehicle data that includes locations of vehicle components and/or vehicle performance characteristics. The vehicle data is then used to generate control signals for controlling a control device that may be associated with a robotic apparatus, a vehicle computer system and/or drone operating system.
Krause (US 20020045970 A1) describes a robotic system for a robot includes a programmable controller coupled to the robot and a teach pendant coupled to the programmable controller. The teach pendant is adapted to control the robot and includes a processor capable of operating the teach pendant and a display coupled to the processor. The teach pendant also includes a web browser. The web browser is adapted to accept input data in a standard format and display the input data on the display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW whose telephone number is (703)756-1854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 5.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270 5376. 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.
/ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights