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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. JP2022-108324 filed on 07/05/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farnioli (US 2023/0063392).
Regarding claim 1:
Farnioli discloses A robot system comprising:
a robot including a hand that holds a workpiece, and a robot arm to which the hand is coupled (robotic device 100, robotic arm 105, end effector 112 grasps lifts object, see at least Fig. 2A, ¶0035); and
a controller that moves the robot arm to perform position control of the hand (controller, see at least ¶0038-0044),
wherein the controller corrects a target height of the hand in the position control depending on the workpiece held by the hand (adjusting to compensate for a departure from a reference trajectory due to weight of a load carried by the end effector, see at least ¶0009, ¶0011, ¶0030, ¶0043, Fig. 2B-C).
Regarding claim 2:
Farnioli further teaches wherein the robot arm includes an electric motor that changes a height position of the hand, and the controller corrects the target height based on variation of a motor current to the electric motor caused by pickup of the workpiece by the hand (see at least ¶0031, detecting joint torques to determine external force, joints comprise electronic motors, see at least ¶0041. State of robot may be determined by motor currents, see at least ¶0067. The Examiner notes that motor torque is recognized as a functional equivalent measure of motor current, since the torque is directly proportional to current).
Regarding claim 3:
Farnioli further teaches wherein the controller corrects the target height based on a variation amount between a motor current previously acquired in a case where the hand does not pick up the workpiece and an actual motor current after the hand has picked up the workpiece (see at least ¶0035, ¶0067).
Regarding claim 4:
Farnioli further teaches wherein the controller corrects the target height based on a variation amount between an actual motor current before the hand picks up the workpiece and an actual motor current after the hand has picked up the workpiece in a series of actions in which the hand picks up and transfers the workpiece under the position control (see at least ¶0035, ¶0067).
Regarding claim 6:
Farnioli further teaches wherein after the hand has picked up the workpiece, the controller corrects the target height (see at least ¶0035).
Regarding claim 7:
Farnioli further teaches wherein the robot arm includes links coupled to one another to be rotatable horizontally (see at least Fig. 2, ¶0040).
Regarding claim 9:
Farnioli further teaches wherein the hand holds any one of a plurality of types of workpieces (The Examiner notes that the instant claim language merely requires the hand holding a workpiece. The recitation of “a plurality of types of workpieces” does not meaningfully limit the robot system as claimed.).
Regarding claim 10:
Farnioli discloses A robot control method comprising:
moving a robot arm to which a hand that holds a workpiece is coupled to perform position control of the hand (see at least ¶0035, ¶0038); and
correcting a target height of the hand in the position control depending on the workpiece held by the hand (adjusting to compensate for a departure from a reference trajectory due to weight of a load carried by the end effector, see at least ¶0009, ¶0011, ¶0030, ¶0043, Fig. 2B-C).
Regarding claim 11:
Farnioli discloses A non-transitory storage medium storing a robot control program for causing a computer to perform (see at least ¶0020) the function of controlling a robot including a hand that holds a workpiece and a robot arm to which the hand is coupled, the program causing the computer to perform the functions of:
moving the robot arm to perform position control of the hand (see at least ¶0035, ¶0038); and
correcting a target height of the hand in the position control depending on the workpiece held by the hand (adjusting to compensate for a departure from a reference trajectory due to weight of a load carried by the end effector, see at least ¶0009, ¶0011, ¶0030, ¶0043, Fig. 2B-C).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnioli.
Regarding claim 5:
Farnioli teaches the limitations as in claim 4 above.
Farnioli does not explicitly teach the specific trajectory being a constant-speed motion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the robot control system and method as taught by Farnioli with any known trajectory type, including a constant speed trajectory as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 8:
Farnioli teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above. Farnioli does not teach any particular workpiece type. However, the Examiner notes that the instant claim language amounts to intended use of the robot system, and since the teachings of Farnioli include generically holding a workpiece, any particular workpiece type would be within the scope of teaching of Farnioli, since the system as taught by Farnioli would be capable of holding a substrate.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the robot system as taught by Farnioli by configuring the robot hand to hold any type of workpiece desired, including a substrate as a matter of design choice, in order to effectively handle and relocate the desired workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights