DETAILED ACTION
This is a final office action on the merits. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3-11 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, see starting page 7 of REMARKS, have been considered but are moot because of new amendments thus the arguments do not apply to current rejection.
In addition, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing:
The interference monitoring part 24 in Hideo only detects whether the robot position intersects with the prohibition area; it does not detect any operating state of the robot and does not correlate any operating state of the robot with stop control.
As such, Hideo does not disclose "detect an operating state of the robot when the interference is detected; set stop control based on the detected operating state of the robot; and stop the robot according to the stop control set based on the detected operating state," as recited in claim 1
However, robot position/where is the robot/the state of its position is its operating state.
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, 3-4, 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 processor 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;
calculate a position of the robot;
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;
detect an operating state of the robot when the interference is detected;
set stop control based on the detected operating state of the robot; and
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 3, HIDEO et al. teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to:
detect a moving direction of the robot when the interference is detected, and
stop 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 processor is further configured 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 processor is further configured to accept setting of the stop control set based on the detected 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 processor is further 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:
Wherein the processor is configured to:
stop the robot according to the stop control set based on the detected operating state of the robot when the interference is detected 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:
specify a signal for switching between enabling and disabling the motion zone or the limiting zone,
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:
specify a signal for switching between enabling and disabling the motion zone or the limiting zone,
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 specify a signal for switching between enabling and disabling the motion zone or the limiting zone, 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 processor is further configured 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 processor is further configured 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 processor is further configured 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 allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 3656
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights