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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
National Stage
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/JP2022/026381 filed 06/30/2022. As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims is the filing date of that PCT application, 06/30/2022.
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.
Claims 20, 24, 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (US 20150290809 A1), hereinafter Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 20, Nakagawa discloses:
A controller configured to control an operation of a robot, the controller comprising:
a safety function execution unit configured to execute a safety function of monitoring at least one of a contact force applied to the robot in operation, a speed of the robot, and an acceleration of the robot, and stopping the operation of the robot when the at least one of the contact force, the speed and the acceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold value (see at least [0041]: “The contact force monitoring part 23 monitors the contact force acting between the robot 10 and the operator and determines whether or not the contact force is greater than a predetermined threshold value. If the contact force is greater than the threshold value, the control part 21 stops the robot 10 or makes the robot 10 retreat in a direction in which the contact force is reduced. In this way, when a contact force which may injure the operator is detected, the robot 10 stops or retreats to reduce the contact force, thereby ensuring the safety of the operator. The contact force monitoring part 23 is activated when the lead-through switch 44 is turned off. It should be noted that since the contact force monitoring part 23 does not distinguish the operator and any other objects in the vicinity of the robot 10 from one another, the robot 10 can be prevented from coming in contact with the operator and the objects in the vicinity of the robot 10.”)
and a direct teach execution unit configured to execute a direct teach function of operating the robot in accordance with a handling force applied to the robot, in parallel with the safety function executed by the safety function execution unit (see at least [0035]: “The position teaching switch is used to input the position and posture of the robot which have been changed through the lead-through operation as teaching points of a operation program of the robot. The inputted teaching points may be used to create or change the operation program for the robot. It should be noted that the function switch 43 may be further provided with other switches having different functions from those described above as necessary, or alternatively one or more of the above-mentioned switches may be omitted.”)
Regarding claim 24, Nakagawa discloses:
The controller of claim 20, wherein the robot is provided with a force sensor configured to detect an external force applied to the robot, and wherein the safety function execution unit and the direct teach execution unit execute the safety function and the direct teach function respectively, based on detection data of the common force sensor (see at least [0027]: “The robot 10 is provided with a force sensor 31 (hereinafter referred to as “the first force sensor”) between the fixed plate 11 and the robot base 12. The first force sensor 31 is designed to be able to detect a force applied on any portion of each component of the robot 10 (for example, the robot base 12, the body part 13, the lower arm 14, the upper arm 15 or the wrist 16). For example, a force applied on the upper arm 15 is transmitted through the lower arm 14, the body part 13 and the robot base 12 and is detected by the first force sensor 31. In this way, the first force sensor 31 can detect a contact force generated by the robot 10 coming in contact with an operator during its operation.”)
Regarding claim 25, Nakagawa discloses:
The controller of claim 20, wherein the robot is provided with a force sensor configured to detect an external force applied to the robot, the force sensor including two-lines detection parts both detecting a force in one direction (see Fig. 2.)
wherein the safety function execution unit executes, in parallel:
a first safety function of monitoring a first contact force obtained based on detection data of one of the two-lines detection parts (see Fig. 2. See further [0027]: “The robot 10 is provided with a force sensor 31 (hereinafter referred to as “the first force sensor”) between the fixed plate 11 and the robot base 12. The first force sensor 31 is designed to be able to detect a force applied on any portion of each component of the robot 10 (for example, the robot base 12, the body part 13, the lower arm 14, the upper arm 15 or the wrist 16). For example, a force applied on the upper arm 15 is transmitted through the lower arm 14, the body part 13 and the robot base 12 and is detected by the first force sensor 31. In this way, the first force sensor 31 can detect a contact force generated by the robot 10 coming in contact with an operator during its operation.”)
and a second safety function of monitoring a second contact force obtained based on detection data of the other one of the two-lines detection parts, and wherein the direct teach execution unit obtains the handling force based on the detection data of at least one of the two-lines detection parts in the direct teach function (see at least Fig. 2. See further [0030]: “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the adaptor 41 attached to the wrist 16 is provided with a force sensor 32 (hereinafter referred to as “the second force sensor”) which detects an operation force applied by an operator during the lead-through operation. The second force sensor 32 is provided between the adaptor 41 and a lead through handle 45.”)
Regarding claim 27, Nakagawa discloses:
A robot system comprising: a robot; and the controller of claim 20 configured to control the robot (see at least Figures 1 and 2.)
Regarding claim 28, Nakagawa discloses:
A method of controlling an operation of a robot, the method comprising:
executing, by a processor, a safety function of monitoring at least one of a contact force applied to the robot in operation, a speed of the robot, and an acceleration of the robot, and stopping the operation of the robot when the at least one of the contact force, the speed and the acceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold value (see at least [0041]: “The contact force monitoring part 23 monitors the contact force acting between the robot 10 and the operator and determines whether or not the contact force is greater than a predetermined threshold value. If the contact force is greater than the threshold value, the control part 21 stops the robot 10 or makes the robot 10 retreat in a direction in which the contact force is reduced. In this way, when a contact force which may injure the operator is detected, the robot 10 stops or retreats to reduce the contact force, thereby ensuring the safety of the operator. The contact force monitoring part 23 is activated when the lead-through switch 44 is turned off. It should be noted that since the contact force monitoring part 23 does not distinguish the operator and any other objects in the vicinity of the robot 10 from one another, the robot 10 can be prevented from coming in contact with the operator and the objects in the vicinity of the robot 10.”)
and executing, by the processor, a direct teach function of operating the robot in accordance with a handling force applied to the robot, in parallel with the safety function (see at least [0035]: “The position teaching switch is used to input the position and posture of the robot which have been changed through the lead-through operation as teaching points of a operation program of the robot. The inputted teaching points may be used to create or change the operation program for the robot. It should be noted that the function switch 43 may be further provided with other switches having different functions from those described above as necessary, or alternatively one or more of the above-mentioned switches may be omitted.”)
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) 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Wang et al. (US-20230122989-A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 21, Nakagawa discloses:
A controller configured to control an operation of a robot, the controller comprising: a safety function execution unit configured to execute a safety function of monitoring at least one of a contact force applied to the robot in operation, a speed of the robot, and an acceleration of the robot, and stopping the operation of the robot based on the at least one of the contact force, the speed and the acceleration (see at least [0041]: “The contact force monitoring part 23 monitors the contact force acting between the robot 10 and the operator and determines whether or not the contact force is greater than a predetermined threshold value. If the contact force is greater than the threshold value, the control part 21 stops the robot 10 or makes the robot 10 retreat in a direction in which the contact force is reduced. In this way, when a contact force which may injure the operator is detected, the robot 10 stops or retreats to reduce the contact force, thereby ensuring the safety of the operator. The contact force monitoring part 23 is activated when the lead-through switch 44 is turned off. It should be noted that since the contact force monitoring part 23 does not distinguish the operator and any other objects in the vicinity of the robot 10 from one another, the robot 10 can be prevented from coming in contact with the operator and the objects in the vicinity of the robot 10.”)
a direct teach execution unit configured to execute a direct teach function of operating the robot in accordance with a handling force applied to the robot; and a function switching unit configured to switch the safety function by the safety function execution unit between enabled and disabled (see at least [0035]: “The position teaching switch is used to input the position and posture of the robot which have been changed through the lead-through operation as teaching points of a operation program of the robot. The inputted teaching points may be used to create or change the operation program for the robot. It should be noted that the function switch 43 may be further provided with other switches having different functions from those described above as necessary, or alternatively one or more of the above-mentioned switches may be omitted.”)
Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches:
wherein the direct teach execution unit does not execute the direct teach function when the safety function is disabled (see at least Figure 4.)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Nakagawa with the safety features as taught by Wang. This is because as stated in [0005] of Wang’s disclosure: “However, in the teaching mode of the related art, robots need to be hand-guided to work, work collaboratively or perform a variety of teaching tasks such as crawling, trial operation, and other non-hand-guiding tasks. The various teaching tasks need to meet different safety requirements. In addition, a hand-guiding operation is used in auto mode. Applying a single operation of a safety system to all teaching operations may result in severe injuries to users. Therefore, a safety system and a method of hand-guiding a robot are in need.”
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Nakagawa and Wang teaches the controller of claim 21.
Nakagawa further discloses wherein the safety function execution unit executes the safety function when the at least one of the contact force, the speed and the acceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold value (see at least [0041]: “The contact force monitoring part 23 monitors the contact force acting between the robot 10 and the operator and determines whether or not the contact force is greater than a predetermined threshold value. If the contact force is greater than the threshold value, the control part 21 stops the robot 10 or makes the robot 10 retreat in a direction in which the contact force is reduced. In this way, when a contact force which may injure the operator is detected, the robot 10 stops or retreats to reduce the contact force, thereby ensuring the safety of the operator. The contact force monitoring part 23 is activated when the lead-through switch 44 is turned off. It should be noted that since the contact force monitoring part 23 does not distinguish the operator and any other objects in the vicinity of the robot 10 from one another, the robot 10 can be prevented from coming in contact with the operator and the objects in the vicinity of the robot 10.”)
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Nakagawa and Wang teaches the controller of claim 21.
Nakagawa does not explicitly teach, but Wang teaches wherein the controller further comprises a safety function determination unit configured to determine whether the safety function is enabled or disabled, when the direct teach execution unit executes the direct teach function (see at least Fig. 4.)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Nakagawa with the safety features as taught by Wang. This is because as stated in [0005] of Wang’s disclosure: “However, in the teaching mode of the related art, robots need to be hand-guided to work, work collaboratively or perform a variety of teaching tasks such as crawling, trial operation, and other non-hand-guiding tasks. The various teaching tasks need to meet different safety requirements. In addition, a hand-guiding operation is used in auto mode. Applying a single operation of a safety system to all teaching operations may result in severe injuries to users. Therefore, a safety system and a method of hand-guiding a robot are in need.”
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Nakagawa and Wang teaches the controller of claim 20.
Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches wherein the controller further comprises a threshold value switching unit configured to switch the threshold value between a first threshold value and a second threshold value larger than the first threshold value, wherein the threshold value switching unit switches the threshold value from the first threshold value to the second threshold value, when the direct teach execution unit starts the direct teach function or when the at least one of the contact force, the speed and the acceleration exceeds a third threshold value during execution of the direct teach function (see first Fig. 4. See further [0012]: “In the embodiment, the safety method for teaching the robot further includes presetting enablement states and limit parameters of the safety modules and the safety functions according to requirements of each operation mode of the robot. The safety method for teaching the robot further includes switching the mode, determining whether the switched mode is the teaching mode such as the manual reduced speed mode or the manual high speed mode, enabling a preset safety function corresponding to the manual reduced speed mode or the manual high speed mode, suspending the robot and setting the same to a safe state, enabling the enabling device, detecting an ON state of the enabling device, quitting the safe state of the robot, and performing a teaching operation on the robot. The safety method for teaching the robot further includes if the robot has completed the operation, then terminating the operation, and if the robot has not completed the operation, returning to the switched mode to continue the operation.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Nakagawa with the safety features as taught by Wang. This is because as stated in [0005] of Wang’s disclosure: “However, in the teaching mode of the related art, robots need to be hand-guided to work, work collaboratively or perform a variety of teaching tasks such as crawling, trial operation, and other non-hand-guiding tasks. The various teaching tasks need to meet different safety requirements. In addition, a hand-guiding operation is used in auto mode. Applying a single operation of a safety system to all teaching operations may result in severe injuries to users. Therefore, a safety system and a method of hand-guiding a robot are in need.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights