DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Pursuant to communications filed on 27 November 2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits. Claims 1-13 and 31-38 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 November 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 13, 31-34 and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honda (JP2022-028062).
Regarding claim 13, Honda teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to execute authentication processing in a machine operation system (Figure 1, robot system 1) including a wireless operation device (Figure 1, portable terminal 30) that is connected to a controller (Figure 1, robot controller 20) of a robot (Figure 1, robot 10) or an industrial machine via wireless communication, and commands a motion of the robot or the industrial machine to the controller in response to an operation content (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0026, wherein “The robot controller 20 controls driving of the robot 10 in response to a command from the portable terminal 30 or based on a program stored in advance.”), and a wired operation device (Figure 1, emergency stop switch 40) that is connected to the controller via wired communication, and includes a non-contact authentication tag (Figure 1, identification code portion 43) (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0027 and 0035-0037, wherein “The emergency stop switch 40 is a mechanical switch 40 that can be manually activated by a user, and is connected to the robot controller 20 by wire” and further wherein “the identification code portion is provided on an inner surface of the protruding portion 421 of the switch main body 41… identification code included in the identification code portion 43 can be expressed by being converted into, for example, characters, numbers, symbols, and the like, and is unique to the switch main body portion 41, that is, unique to the emergency stop switch 40.”), the computer program for causing a computer to execute authentication processing comprising:
an event detection step of detecting an approach event in which the non-contact authentication tag enters the inside of a first region, which is defined to perform wireless communication with the non-contact authentication tag, from the outside of the first region, and a withdrawal event in which the non-contact authentication tag exits the inside of the first region to the outside of the first region (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches the robot controller 20 includes a second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. event detection unit) that detects a state in which the identification code part 43 has entered , from the outside of a predetermined imaging region (i.e. first region) of the mobile terminal 30, inside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 has been correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. approach event) and a state in which the identification code part 43 has exited from the inside of the imaging region to the outside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. departure event)); and
an authentication step of determining whether an operation content for the wireless operation device is valid or invalid in response to a content of an event detected in the event detection step (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached).
Regarding claim 31, Honda teaches a controller (Figure 1, robot controller 20) comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor
accepts connection with a wireless operation device (Figure 1, portable terminal 30) that can transmit a command related to a motion of a robot (Figure 1, robot 10) or an industrial machine (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0026, wherein “The robot controller 20 controls driving of the robot 10 in response to a command from the portable terminal 30 or based on a program stored in advance.”),
accepts connection with a wired operation device (Figure 1, emergency stop switch 40) including a non-contact authentication tag (Figure 1, identification code portion 43) (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0027 and 0035-0037, wherein “The emergency stop switch 40 is a mechanical switch 40 that can be manually activated by a user, and is connected to the robot controller 20 by wire” and further wherein “the identification code portion is provided on an inner surface of the protruding portion 421 of the switch main body 41… identification code included in the identification code portion 43 can be expressed by being converted into, for example, characters, numbers, symbols, and the like, and is unique to the switch main body portion 41, that is, unique to the emergency stop switch 40.”),
acquires the command related to the motion, based on occurrence of an approach event in which the non-contact authentication tag enters the inside of a first region of the wireless operation device, which is defined to perform wireless communication with the non-contact authentication tag, from the outside of the first region (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches the robot controller 20 includes a second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. event detection unit) that detects a state in which the identification code part 43 has entered , from the outside of a predetermined imaging region (i.e. first region) of the mobile terminal 30, inside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 has been correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. approach event) and a state in which the identification code part 43 has exited from the inside of the imaging region to the outside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. departure event)), and
does not acquire the command related to the motion, based on occurrence of a withdrawal event in which the non-contact authentication tag exits the inside of the first region to the outside of the first region (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached).
Regarding claim 32, Honda further teaches wherein information about authentication of an operation content by the wireless operation device is acquired based on the approach event and the withdrawal event (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached).
Regarding claim 33, Honda further teaches wherein the information about the authentication is output from the wireless operation device (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached).
Regarding claim 34, Honda further teaches wherein the at least one processor derives the information about the authentication (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached).
Regarding claim 36, Honda further teaches wherein the non-contact authentication tag includes an identifier unique to the wired operation device, and the information about the authentication is derived based on whether the wireless operation device has communicated with the identifier at the approach event (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraph 0037, wherein the identification code part 43 has a unique identification code (i.e. identifier), and further as in at least paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein when the robot 10 is operated, the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. identifier acquisition unit) matches the set identification data (i.e. reference identifier) and the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is not permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 does not match the set identification data.).
Regarding claim 37, Honda further teaches wherein the at least one memory stores a reference identifier, and the information about the authentication is derived based on whether the identifier coincides with the reference identifier (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraph 0037, wherein the identification code part 43 has a unique identification code (i.e. identifier), and further as in at least paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein when the robot 10 is operated, the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. identifier acquisition unit) matches the set identification data (i.e. reference identifier) and the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is not permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 does not match the set identification data.).
Regarding claim 38, Honda teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for causing a computer to execute authentication processing of a wireless operation device (Figure 1, portable terminal 30) that can transmit a command related to a motion of a robot (Figure 1, robot 10) or an industrial machine (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0026, wherein “The robot controller 20 controls driving of the robot 10 in response to a command from the portable terminal 30 or based on a program stored in advance.”), the computer program comprising:
a step of accepting connection with the wireless operation device (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0026, wherein “The robot controller 20 controls driving of the robot 10 in response to a command from the portable terminal 30 or based on a program stored in advance.”);
a step of accepting connection with a wired operation device (Figure 1, emergency stop switch 40) including a non-contact authentication tag (Figure 1, identification code portion 43) (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0027 and 0035-0037, wherein “The emergency stop switch 40 is a mechanical switch 40 that can be manually activated by a user, and is connected to the robot controller 20 by wire” and further wherein “the identification code portion is provided on an inner surface of the protruding portion 421 of the switch main body 41… identification code included in the identification code portion 43 can be expressed by being converted into, for example, characters, numbers, symbols, and the like, and is unique to the switch main body portion 41, that is, unique to the emergency stop switch 40.”);
a step of acquiring the command related to the motion, based on occurrence of an approach event in which the non-contact authentication tag enters the inside of a first region of the wireless operation device, which is defined to perform wireless communication with the non-contact authentication tag, from the outside of the first region (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches the robot controller 20 includes a second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. event detection unit) that detects a state in which the identification code part 43 has entered , from the outside of a predetermined imaging region (i.e. first region) of the mobile terminal 30, inside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 has been correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. approach event) and a state in which the identification code part 43 has exited from the inside of the imaging region to the outside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. departure event)); and
a step of not acquiring the command related to the motion, based on occurrence of a withdrawal event in which the non-contact authentication tag exits the inside of the first region to the outside of the first region (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached).
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(s) 1, 2 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (JP2022-028062).
Regarding claim 1, Honda teaches a machine operation system (Figure 1, robot system 1) comprising:
a wireless operation device (Figure 1, portable terminal 30) that is connected to a controller (Figure 1, robot controller 20) of a robot (Figure 1, robot 10) or an industrial machine via wireless communication, and commands a motion of the robot or the industrial machine to the controller in response to an operation content (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0026, wherein “The robot controller 20 controls driving of the robot 10 in response to a command from the portable terminal 30 or based on a program stored in advance.”); and
a wired operation device (Figure 1, emergency stop switch 40) that is connected to the controller via wired communication, and includes a non-contact authentication tag (Figure 1, identification code portion 43) (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0027 and 0035-0037, wherein “The emergency stop switch 40 is a mechanical switch 40 that can be manually activated by a user, and is connected to the robot controller 20 by wire” and further wherein “the identification code portion is provided on an inner surface of the protruding portion 421 of the switch main body 41… identification code included in the identification code portion 43 can be expressed by being converted into, for example, characters, numbers, symbols, and the like, and is unique to the switch main body portion 41, that is, unique to the emergency stop switch 40.”),
wherein the wireless operation device includes
an event detection unit (Figure 1, second acquisition unit 24) configured to detect an approach event in which the non-contact authentication tag enters the inside of a first region, which is defined to perform wireless communication with the non-contact authentication tag, from the outside of the first region, and a withdrawal event in which the non-contact authentication tag exits the inside of the first region to the outside of the first region (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches the robot controller 20 includes a second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. event detection unit) that detects a state in which the identification code part 43 has entered , from the outside of a predetermined imaging region (i.e. first region) of the mobile terminal 30, inside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 has been correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. approach event) and a state in which the identification code part 43 has exited from the inside of the imaging region to the outside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. departure event)), and
an authentication unit (Figure 1, permission determination processing unit 25) configured to determine whether an operation content for the wireless operation device is valid or invalid in response to a content of an event detected by the event detection unit (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached). Examiner contends wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the second acquisition processing unit 24 and the permission determination processing unit 25 on the mobile terminal 30 side instead of providing the respective units on the robot controller side as taught by Honda, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Honda further teaches wherein the authentication unit validates an operation content for the wireless operation device when the approach event is detected by the event detection unit, and invalidates an operation content for the wireless operation device when the withdrawal event is detected by the event detection unit (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached).
Regarding claim 8, Honda further teaches wherein the non-contact authentication tag includes an identifier unique to the wired operation device, the wireless operation device includes an identifier acquisition unit configured to acquire the identifier of the non-contact authentication tag when the approach event is detected by the event detection unit, and, in an operation mode, the authentication unit validates an operation content for the wireless operation device when the identifier acquired by the identifier acquisition unit coincides with the identifier acquired in advance by the identifier acquisition unit in a setting mode before the operation mode, and the authentication unit invalidates an operation content for the wireless operation device when the identifier acquired by the identifier acquisition unit does not coincide with the identifier acquired in advance by the identifier acquisition unit in the setting mode (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraph 0037, wherein the identification code part 43 has a unique identification code (i.e. identifier), and further as in at least paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein when the robot 10 is operated, the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. identifier acquisition unit) matches the set identification data (i.e. reference identifier) and the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is not permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 does not match the set identification data.).
Regarding claim 9, Honda further teaches wherein the non-contact authentication tag includes an identifier unique to the wired operation device, the wireless operation device includes an identifier acquisition unit configured to acquire the identifier of the non-contact authentication tag when the approach event is detected by the event detection unit, an identifier writing unit configured to set, as a reference identifier, the identifier of the non-contact authentication tag acquired by the identifier acquisition unit in a setting mode, and write the reference identifier to a storage unit of the controller via wireless communication, and an identifier reading unit configured to read the reference identifier from the storage unit of the controller via wireless communication when the approach event is detected by the event detection unit in an operation mode after the setting mode, and, in the operation mode, the authentication unit validates an operation content for the wireless operation device when the identifier acquired by the identifier acquisition unit coincides with the reference identifier, and the authentication unit invalidates an operation content for the wireless operation device when the identifier acquired by the identifier acquisition unit does not coincide with the reference identifier (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraph 0037, wherein the identification code part 43 has a unique identification code (i.e. identifier), and further as in at least paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein when the robot 10 is operated, the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. identifier acquisition unit) matches the set identification data (i.e. reference identifier) and the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is not permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 does not match the set identification data.).
Regarding claim 10, Honda teaches a machine operation system (Figure 1, robot system 1) comprising:
a controller (Figure 1, robot controller 20) of a robot (Figure 1, robot 10) or an industrial machine;
a wireless operation device (Figure 1, portable terminal 30) that is connected to the controller via wireless communication, and commands a motion of the robot or the industrial machine to the controller in response to an operation content (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0025-0026, wherein “The robot controller 20 controls driving of the robot 10 in response to a command from the portable terminal 30 or based on a program stored in advance.”); and
a wired operation device (Figure 1, emergency stop switch 40) that is connected to the controller via wired communication, and includes a non-contact authentication tag (Figure 1, identification code portion 43) to which an individual identifier is assigned (Figure 1; at least as in paragraphs 0027 and 0035-0037, wherein “The emergency stop switch 40 is a mechanical switch 40 that can be manually activated by a user, and is connected to the robot controller 20 by wire” and further wherein “the identification code portion is provided on an inner surface of the protruding portion 421 of the switch main body 41… identification code included in the identification code portion 43 can be expressed by being converted into, for example, characters, numbers, symbols, and the like, and is unique to the switch main body portion 41, that is, unique to the emergency stop switch 40.”),
wherein the wireless operation device includes
an event detection unit (Figure 1, second acquisition unit 24) configured to detect an approach event in which the non-contact authentication tag enters the inside of a first region, which is defined to perform wireless communication with the non-contact authentication tag, from the outside of the first region (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches the robot controller 20 includes a second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. event detection unit) that detects a state in which the identification code part 43 has entered , from the outside of a predetermined imaging region (i.e. first region) of the mobile terminal 30, inside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 has been correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. approach event) and a state in which the identification code part 43 has exited from the inside of the imaging region to the outside of the imaging region and the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached to the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. departure event)),
an identifier acquisition unit configured to acquire the identifier of the non-contact authentication tag when the approach event is detected by the event detection unit (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraph 0037, wherein the identification code part 43 has a unique identification code (i.e. identifier), and further as in at least paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein when the robot 10 is operated, the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. identifier acquisition unit) matches the set identification data (i.e. reference identifier) and the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is not permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 does not match the set identification data.), and
an identifier writing unit configured to set, as a reference identifier, the identifier of the non-contact authentication tag acquired by the identifier acquisition unit in a setting mode, and write the reference identifier to a storage unit of the controller via wireless communication (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraph 0037, wherein the identification code part 43 has a unique identification code (i.e. identifier), and further as in at least paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein when the robot 10 is operated, the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 (i.e. identifier acquisition unit) matches the set identification data (i.e. reference identifier) and the operation from the mobile terminal 30 is not permitted in the case in which the identification code acquired by the second acquisition processing unit 24 does not match the set identification data.). Examiner contends wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the second acquisition processing unit 24 and the permission determination processing unit 25 on the mobile terminal 30 side instead of providing the respective units on the robot controller side as taught by Honda, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Honda further teaches wherein the wireless operation device includes an identifier reading unit configured to read the reference identifier from the storage unit of the controller via wireless communication when the approach event is detected by the event detection unit in an operation mode after the setting mode, and the controller includes an authentication unit configured to, in the operation mode, validate an operation content for the wireless operation device when the identifier acquired by the identifier acquisition unit coincides with the reference identifier, and invalidate the controller invalidates an operation content for the wireless operation device when the identifier acquired by the identifier acquisition unit does not coincide with the reference identifier in the operation mode (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached).
Regarding claim 12, Honda further teaches wherein the event detection unit detects the approach event and a withdrawal event in which the non-contact authentication tag exits the inside of the first region to the outside of the first region (Figures 1 & 6; at least as in paragraphs 0057-0065, wherein Honda teaches a permission determination processing unit 25 that permits an operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. enables operation content) in the case in which the second acquisition processing unit 24 detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is correctly attached and prohibits operation from the mobile terminal 30 (i.e. disables operation content) in the case in which the event detection unit detects that the emergency stop switch 40 is not correctly attached).
Claim(s) 3-7 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (JP2022-028062) in view of Kawase et al (JP2016-060018, hereinafter Kawase).
The teachings of Honda have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Honda is silent regarding wherein the wireless operation device includes an application execution unit configured to execute an operation application software program that controls the controller in such a way that the robot or the industrial machine performs a motion in response to an operation content related to a teaching operation on the robot or the industrial machine. Kawase, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an operation system including a smart device (i.e. wireless operation device) that commands a robot control device to operate a robot and an emergency stop switch (i.e. wired operation device) that is connected to the robot control device. Kawase goes on to teach wherein the smart device including an application execution unit that executes application software (i.e. operation application software program) for controlling a robot controller so that a robot operates in accordance with operation content relating to a teaching operation for the robot (Figure 5; at least as in paragraphs 0034-0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Honda, to include Kawase’s teaching of providing an application execution unit configured to execute an operation application software program for teaching a control operation of the robot, since Kawase teaches wherein such a system provides an efficient and safe way to teach/control an operation/movement of said robot, thereby providing a more robust robotic system.
Regarding claim 4, in view of the above combination of Honda and Kawase, Kawase further teaches wherein event detection processing by the event detection unit is executed when the operation application software program is executed by the application execution unit (Figure 5; at least as in paragraphs 0034-0036).
Regarding claim 5, Honda and Kawase are silent regarding wherein the application execution unit activates the operation application software program when power of the wireless operation device is turned on, and executes the operation application software program as a background process until there is a teaching operation start command to the wireless operation device after activation of the operation application software program, and executes the operation application software program as a foreground process after there is the teaching operation start command. That said, preferentially executing an operation application software program for controlling the robot controller so that the robot operates when performing an operation from the mobile terminal, executing the operation application software with a low priority when the operation is ended, etc. would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, since Applicant has not disclosed that such teachings solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears the invention would perform equally well regardless of the execution of the operation application software program as a background/foreground process.
Regarding claim 6, Honda and Kawase are silent regarding wherein after there is a teaching operation end command to the wireless operation device while the operation application software program is executed as a foreground process, the application execution unit executes the operation application software program as a background process. That said, preferentially executing an operation application software program for controlling the robot controller so that the robot operates when performing an operation from the mobile terminal, executing the operation application software with a low priority when the operation is ended, etc. would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, since Applicant has not disclosed that such teachings solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears the invention would perform equally well regardless of the execution of the operation application software program as a background/foreground process.
Regarding claim 7, Honda and Kawase are silent regarding wherein the application execution unit executes the operation application software program as a foreground process when the approach event is detected by the event detection unit while the operation application software program is executed as a background process, and the application execution unit executes the operation application software program as a background process when the withdrawal event is detected by the event detection unit while the operation application software program is executed as a foreground process. That said, preferentially executing an operation application software program for controlling the robot controller so that the robot operates when performing an operation from the mobile terminal, executing the operation application software with a low priority when the operation is ended, etc. would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, since Applicant has not disclosed that such teachings solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears the invention would perform equally well regardless of the execution of the operation application software program as a background/foreground process.
Regarding claim 35, Honda is silent regarding wherein the information about the authentication is derived based on an execution situation of an operation application software program of the wireless operation device for outputting the command related to the motion. Kawase, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an operation system including a smart device (i.e. wireless operation device) that commands a robot control device to operate a robot and an emergency stop switch (i.e. wired operation device) that is connected to the robot control device. Kawase goes on to teach wherein the smart device including an application execution unit that executes application software (i.e. operation application software program) for controlling a robot controller so that a robot operates in accordance with operation content relating to a teaching operation for the robot (Figure 5; at least as in paragraphs 0034-0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Honda, to include Kawase’s teaching of providing an application execution unit configured to execute an operation application software program for teaching a control operation of the robot, since Kawase teaches wherein such a system provides an efficient and safe way to teach/control an operation/movement of said robot, thereby providing a more robust robotic system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following prior art references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention and also appear to read on some of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 2024/0391108 A1, issued to Namiki, which is directed towards a control device for controlling an industrial machine (i.e. robot arm), including a teach pendant for teaching the industrial machine to perform one or more tasks.
US 2021/0154847 A1, issued to Shinohara, which is directed towards a robot system that is controlled by a robot controller and a wireless communication device that is worn or carried by a user in proximity to the robot such that the robot is safely controlled based on the proximity of the user to the robot system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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 at (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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657