DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-10 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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:
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;
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
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “storage unit configured to store” in Claim 1; “search unit configured to search” in Claim 1; “display unit configured to display” in Claim 1; “calculation unit configured to calculate” in Claim 3; “storage unit configured to store” in Claim 10; “search unit configured to search” in Claim 10; and “display unit configured to display” in Claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizobe (US Pub. No. 2022/0101213).
As per Claim 1, Mizobe discloses a robot control device (40, 600) for controlling a robot (3) provided with a sensor (E1-E6; S1) (Figs. 1-2, 6; ¶29-30, 37, 40-41, 67-68), comprising:
a storage unit (44, 630) configured to store a parameter (44a, 44c) for setting an operation (as per motion time in ¶72, as per overshoot amount in ¶73-74; as per vibration amount of end of motion in ¶75; as per noise level in ¶76; as per estimated lifetime in ¶78-83; as per torque ration in ¶84) of the robot (3) in association with an index value (612a) representing an operation state of the robot (3) that operates in accordance with the parameter (44a, 44c) (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10; ¶40-54, 67-92);
a search unit (612) configured to search (as per 210-260) for the parameter (44a, 44c) based on the index value (612a) (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10; ¶40-54, 67-93); and
a display unit (602) configured to display the searched parameter (as per 210-260) (Figs. 6-7, 10, 13, 18; ¶67-92, 133-141).
As per Claim 10, Mizobe discloses a robot control system (600, 40, 3) in which a robot control device (40, 600) configured to control a robot (3) provided with a sensor (E1-E6; S1) and an information processing apparatus (600) are connected via a network (as per “the interface” in ¶68) (Figs. 1-2, 6; ¶29-30, 37, 40-41, 67-68), wherein
the robot control device (40) includes:
a storage unit (44, 630) configured to store a parameter (44a, 44c) for setting an operation (as per motion time in ¶72, as per overshoot amount in ¶73-74; as per vibration amount of end of motion in ¶75; as per noise level in ¶76; as per estimated lifetime in ¶78-83; as per torque ration in ¶84) of the robot (3) in association with an index value (612a) representing an operation state of the robot (3) that operates in accordance with the parameter (44a, 44c) (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10; ¶40-54, 67-95);
a search unit (612) configured to search (as per 210-260) for the parameter (44a, 44c) based on the index value (612a) (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10; ¶40-54, 67-93); and
a display unit (602) configured to display the searched parameter (as per 210-260) (Figs. 6-7, 10, 13, 18; ¶67-92, 133-141), and
the parameter (44a, 44c) and the index value (612a) stored in the storage unit (44, 630) are shared with the information processing apparatus (600) (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10; ¶40-54, 67-95).
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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizobe (US Pub. No. 2022/0101213) in view of Stubbs (US Patent No. 9,669,543).
As per Claim 2, Mizobe discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Mizobe further discloses wherein the parameter (44a, 44c) is stored in the storage unit (44, 630) in association with a cycle time (as per motion time in ¶72) of the robot (3), an output value (as per overshoot amount in ¶73-74) of a sensor (as per “end of the motion obtained from the encoders E1 to E6 … and the output of the acceleration sensor S1” in ¶74) mounted on the robot (3) or {a value derived therefrom}, presence or absence of an operation abnormality (as per “vibration amount” in ¶75), along with the index value (612a) (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10; ¶40-54, 67-92).
Mizobe does not expressly disclose wherein the parameter is stored in association with and a degree of success or failure of the operation.
Stubbs discloses a robotic manipulator (110) in communication with a grasp management service (102) that generates valid grasps (112) to control the manipulator (110) (Figs. 1-2; 3:28-5:24). A user device (204) is operable by a user (210) to interact with the with the grasp management device (102) and operate the manipulator (110) (Fig. 2; 5:4-24). The grasp management device (102) includes memory (214) storing a grasp management engine (220) that includes a validation module (312) that operates to evaluate and validate a set of grasps and determine a richness measure of the set of grasps (Figs. 2-3; 6:37-7:3, 9:17-31, 10:40-11:28). In operation, the user receives from the grasp management service (102) notifications including: a notification when the grasp set that meets or exceeds a richness threshold (11:29-34); a notification that that grasp set is incomplete because a grasp cannot be successfully executed (12:35-13:3); and a notification that no suitable feasible grasps can be found (17:37-55). As such, the system of Stubbs indicates a degree of success or failure of the operation. In this way, the system functions to provide quicker and more efficient searching of feasible grasps (9:6-16). Like Mizobe, Stubbs is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mizobe and Stubbs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe since doing so would enhance the system by providing quicker and more efficient searching of feasible grasps. Applying the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe would result in a system “wherein the parameter is stored in association with and a degree of success or failure of the operation” in that the system of Mizobe would be informed by determinations of degree of success as per Stubbs.
As per Claim 3, the combination of Mizobe and Stubbs teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Mizobe further discloses a calculation unit (610) configured to calculate the index value (as per 612a) based on the cycle time (as per motion time in ¶72), the output value (as per overshoot amount in ¶73-74) of the sensor (as per “end of the motion obtained from the encoders E1 to E6 … and the output of the acceleration sensor S1” in ¶74) or {the value derived therefrom}, a value assigned to the presence or absence of the operation abnormality (as per “vibration amount” in ¶75).
Mizobe does not expressly disclose wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate the index value based a value assigned to the degree of success or failure of the operation.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Stubbs.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mizobe and Stubbs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe since doing so would enhance the system by providing quicker and more efficient searching of feasible grasps. Applying the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe would result in a system “wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate the index value based a value assigned to the degree of success or failure of the operation” in that calculations within the system of Mizobe would be informed by determinations of degree of success as per Stubbs.
As per Claim 4, the combination of Mizobe and Stubbs teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 3. Mizobe further discloses wherein a degree of weighting (as per buttons B11-B15 for selection; as per selection windows D11, D12) of each of the cycle time (as per motion time in ¶72), the output value (as per overshoot amount in ¶73-74) of the sensor (as per “end of the motion obtained from the encoders E1 to E6 … and the output of the acceleration sensor S1” in ¶74) or {the value derived therefrom}, the value assigned to the presence or absence of the operation abnormality (as per “vibration amount” in ¶75) corresponding to the index value (612a) is changed in accordance with a level of importance input (as per user selections of buttons B11-B15 and windows D11, D12) by a user (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10; ¶40-54, 67-92).
Mizobe does not expressly disclose wherein a degree of weighting of the value assigned to the success or failure of the operation corresponding to the index value is changed in accordance with a level of importance input by a user.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Stubbs.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mizobe and Stubbs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe since doing so would enhance the system by providing quicker and more efficient searching of feasible grasps. Applying the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe would result in a system “wherein a degree of weighting of the value assigned to the success or failure of the operation corresponding to the index value is changed in accordance with a level of importance input by a user” in that user selections within the system of Mizobe would be informed by determinations of degree of success as per Stubbs.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Mizobe and Stubbs teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Mizobe further discloses wherein the display unit (602) displays (as per L21 to L25) the index value (612a) associated with the searched (as per 210-260) parameter (44a, 44c) (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10, 13; ¶40-54, 67-95, 133-141), the cycle time (as per MOTION TIME in Fig. 13), the output value of the sensor or the value derived therefrom (as per OVERSHOOT AMOUNT in Fig. 13), the presence or absence of the operation abnormality (as per PARAMETER SET corresponding to selection of B12 in Fig. 13), along with the searched (as per 210-260) parameter (44a, 44c; as per PARAMTER SET in Fig. 13) (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10, 13; ¶40-54, 67-95, 133-141).
Mizobe does not expressly disclose wherein the display unit displays the degree of success or failure of the operation.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Stubbs.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mizobe and Stubbs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe since doing so would enhance the system by providing quicker and more efficient searching of feasible grasps. Applying the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe would result in a system “wherein the display unit displays the degree of success or failure of the operation” in that the display as per the system of Mizobe would be informed by determinations of degree of success as per Stubbs.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Mizobe and Stubbs teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Mizobe does not expressly disclose wherein the display unit displays a moving image that reproduces an operation of the robot when the operation was unsuccessful, based on the parameter associated with a fact that the operation was unsuccessful.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Stubbs. Stubbs further discloses an operator station (802) with a user device (204) that displays a real-time image of the manipulator (110) and generates a notification if the manipulator (110) is unable to find suitable feasible grasps (Figs. 8-9; 16:55-18:28).
Therefore, from these teachings of Mizobe and Stubbs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe since doing so would enhance the system by providing quicker and more efficient searching of feasible grasps. Applying the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe would result in a system “wherein the display unit displays a moving image that reproduces an operation of the robot when the operation was unsuccessful, based on the parameter associated with a fact that the operation was unsuccessful” in that the system of Mizobe would include a display that is informed by determinations of degree of success as per Stubbs.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Mizobe and Stubbs teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Mizobe does not expressly disclose wherein the search unit searches for the parameter associated with a fact that the operation was successful and the parameter associated with a fact that the operation was unsuccessful.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Stubbs.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mizobe and Stubbs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe since doing so would enhance the system by providing quicker and more efficient searching of feasible grasps. Applying the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe would result in a system “wherein the search unit searches for the parameter associated with a fact that the operation was successful and the parameter associated with a fact that the operation was unsuccessful” in that the system of Mizobe would be informed by determinations of degree of success as per Stubbs.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Mizobe and Stubbs teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 7. Mizobe does not expressly disclose wherein the display unit displays the parameter associated with the fact that the operation was unsuccessful together with how to make the operation successful.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Stubbs. Stubbs further discloses an operator station (802) with a user device (204) that displays a real-time image of the manipulator (110) and generates a notification if the manipulator (110) is unable to find suitable feasible grasps and the operator may then assist operation of the manipulator (110) via the device (204) (Figs. 8-9; 16:55-18:28).
Therefore, from these teachings of Mizobe and Stubbs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe since doing so would enhance the system by providing quicker and more efficient searching of feasible grasps. Applying the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe would result in a system “wherein the display unit displays the parameter associated with the fact that the operation was unsuccessful together with how to make the operation successful” in that the system of Mizobe would include a display that is informed by determinations of degree of success as per Stubbs.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Mizobe and Stubbs teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Mizobe further discloses wherein aspects of the operation (as per motion time in ¶72, as per overshoot amount in ¶73-74; as per vibration amount of end of motion in ¶75; as per noise level in ¶76; as per estimated lifetime in ¶78-83; as per torque ration in ¶84) are input in accordance with a user instruction (as per user selections of buttons B11-B15 and windows D11, D12) (Figs. 2-3, 6-7, 10; ¶40-54, 67-92).
Mizobe does not expressly disclose wherein the aspects include the degree of success or failure of the operation.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Stubbs.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mizobe and Stubbs, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe since doing so would enhance the system by providing quicker and more efficient searching of feasible grasps. Applying the teachings of Stubbs to the system of Mizobe would result in a system “wherein the aspects include the degree of success or failure of the operation” in that the system of Mizobe would be informed by determinations of degree of success as per Stubbs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takeuchi (US Pub. No. 2019/0329404) discloses a robot control device. Hatanaka (US Pub. No. 2020/0198128) discloses a learning data confirmation support device, machine learning device, and failure predicting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656