DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-11 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Zone setting unit, position calculation unit, interference detection unit, operating state detection unit, stop unit in claim 1;
Stop method setting unit in claim 2;
Interfering face detection unit in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HIDEO et al. (JP-2004243427-A a reference in IDS 12/16/2024, provided translation being cited).
Regarding claim 1, HIDEO et al. teaches:
A robot controller for controlling a robot, the robot controller comprising:
a zone setting unit configured to set a motion zone where the robot is allowed to move or a limiting zone where the robot is not allowed to enter;
a position calculation unit configured to calculate a position of the robot;
an interference detection unit configured to detect interference between the robot and an outer surface of the motion zone or the limiting zone, based on the calculated position of the robot;
an operating state detection unit configured to detect an operating state of the robot when the interference is detected; and
a stop unit configured to stop the robot according to stop control based on the detected operating state;
(at least fig. 1 [0007]-0014] discussed control device 20, robot position calculation unit 22, operation prohibition area setting part 23 setting robot operation prohibition area around teacher 30, interference monitoring part 24 for stopping a robot 10 when the robot position enters the robot operation prohibition area)
Regarding claim 2, HIDEO et al. teaches:
a stop method setting unit configured to set the stop control based on the operating state of the robot, wherein
the stop unit stops the robot according to the stop control being based on the operating state and being set by the stop method setting unit;
(at least fig. 1 [0007]-0014] discussed control device 20, robot position calculation unit 22, operation prohibition area setting part 23 setting robot operation prohibition area around teacher 30, interference monitoring part 24 for stopping a robot 10 when the robot position enters the robot operation prohibition area)
Regarding claim 3, HIDEO et al. teaches:
wherein the operating state detection unit includes a moving direction detection unit configured to detect a moving direction of the robot when the interference is detected, and
the stop unit stops the robot according to the stop control based on the moving direction of the robot when the interference is detected;
(at least fig. 1 [0007]-0014] discussed control device 20, robot position calculation unit 22, operation prohibition area setting part 23 setting robot operation prohibition area around teacher 30, interference monitoring part 24 for stopping a robot 10 when the robot position enters the robot operation prohibition area; at least [0014] discussed “In addition, when the interference monitoring unit 24 determines that "there is interference", the robot 10 may be instructed to perform an avoidance action. The pattern of evasive action has a pattern in which the robot 10 operates along the pattern which returns conversely, and the boundary of the aforementioned robot motion keepout area to an old moving direction, and a pattern which returns to the position decided preliminarily”);
Regarding claim 4, HIDEO et al. teaches:
Wherein the stop method setting unit is configured to be able to set different stop control for each moving direction of the robot;
(at least fig. 1 [0007]-0014] discussed control device 20, robot position calculation unit 22, operation prohibition area setting part 23 setting robot operation prohibition area around teacher 30, interference monitoring part 24 for stopping a robot 10 when the robot position enters the robot operation prohibition area; at least [0014] discussed “In addition, when the interference monitoring unit 24 determines that "there is interference", the robot 10 may be instructed to perform an avoidance action. The pattern of evasive action has a pattern in which the robot 10 operates along the pattern which returns conversely, and the boundary of the aforementioned robot motion keepout area to an old moving direction, and a pattern which returns to the position decided preliminarily”)
Regarding claim 10, HIDEO et al. teaches:
wherein the stop method setting unit is configured to accept setting of the stop control based on the operating state of the robot through a user interface screen;
(at least fig. 1 [0007]-0014] discussed control device 20, robot position calculation unit 22, operation prohibition area setting part 23 setting robot operation prohibition area around teacher 30, interference monitoring part 24 for stopping a robot 10 when the robot position enters the robot operation prohibition area; at least [0014] discussed “In addition, when the interference monitoring unit 24 determines that "there is interference", the robot 10 may be instructed to perform an avoidance action. The pattern of evasive action has a pattern in which the robot 10 operates along the pattern which returns conversely, and the boundary of the aforementioned robot motion keepout area to an old moving direction, and a pattern which returns to the position decided preliminarily”; fig. 13 [0017])
Regarding claim 11, HIDEO et al. teaches:
wherein the zone setting unit is configured to accept setting related to the motion zone or the limiting zone through a user interface screen;
(at least fig. 1 [0007]-0014] discussed control device 20, robot position calculation unit 22, operation prohibition area setting part 23 setting robot operation prohibition area around teacher 30, interference monitoring part 24 for stopping a robot 10 when the robot position enters the robot operation prohibition area; at least [0014] discussed “In addition, when the interference monitoring unit 24 determines that "there is interference", the robot 10 may be instructed to perform an avoidance action. The pattern of evasive action has a pattern in which the robot 10 operates along the pattern which returns conversely, and the boundary of the aforementioned robot motion keepout area to an old moving direction, and a pattern which returns to the position decided preliminarily”; fig. 13 [0017])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIDEO et al. (JP-2004243427-A a reference in IDS 12/16/2024, provided translation being cited) as applied to claim above, and further in view of NIHEI et al. (US 20100191372).
Regarding claim 8, HIDEO et al. teaches:
the stop unit stops the robot according to the stop control based on the operating state of the robot when the interference is detected in a case in a case where the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled; (at least fig. 1 [0007]-0014] discussed control device 20, robot position calculation unit 22, operation prohibition area setting part 23 setting robot operation prohibition area around teacher 30, interference monitoring part 24 for stopping a robot 10 when the robot position enters the robot operation prohibition area);
HIDEO et al. does not explicitly teach:
wherein the zone setting unit is configured to be able to specify a signal for switching between enabling and disabling the motion zone or the limiting zone,
the interference detection unit is configured to detect the interference when, based on the signal, the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled, and
the case where the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled includes based on the signal, the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled;
However, NIHEI et al. teaches:
wherein the zone setting unit is configured to be able to specify a signal for switching between enabling and disabling the motion zone or the limiting zone,
the interference detection unit is configured to detect the interference when, based on the signal, the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled, and
the case where the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled includes based on the signal, the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled;
(figs. 4A-4C [0057]-[0069]) for safety ([0057]-[0069]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of HIDEO et al. with wherein the zone setting unit is configured to be able to specify a signal for switching between enabling and disabling the motion zone or the limiting zone, the interference detection unit is configured to detect the interference when, based on the signal, the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled, and the case where the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled includes based on the signal, the motion zone or the limiting zone is enabled; as taught by NIHEI et al. for safety.
Regarding claim 9 , HIDEO et al. does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the zone setting unit is configured to be able to specify a detection signal from a sensor for detecting entry of a person into the motion zone or the limiting zone as the signal for switching between enabling and disabling the motion zone or the limiting zone;
However, NIHEI et al. teaches:
Wherein the zone setting unit is configured to be able to specify a detection signal from a sensor for detecting entry of a person into the motion zone or the limiting zone as the signal for switching between enabling and disabling the motion zone or the limiting zone;
(figs. 4A-4C [0057]-[0069]) for safety ([0057]-[0069]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of HIDEO et al. with wherein the zone setting unit is configured to be able to specify a detection signal from a sensor for detecting entry of a person into the motion zone or the limiting zone as the signal for switching between enabling and disabling the motion zone or the limiting zone as taught by NIHEI et al. for safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656