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 Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1 and 3-11 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-11 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Additionally, however, the Examiner that Applicant argues that “contrary to Farnioli’s goal of recovering the original trajectory, the claimed features adjust the target height of the hand to a new target height”. The Examiner notes that this does not accurately represent the distinction between the instant invention and the prior art reference. The Examiner contends that both Farnioli and the instant invention seek to “recover the original trajectory”. Applicant’s recitation of “a new target height” is meant to compensate for deformation/deflection from the load, and the actual height of the robot arm based on the “new target height” is the original target height of the arm, just as in Farnioli (see instant Fig. 7, and PGPUB ¶0062 “As a result, the real height of the hand 3 increases as compared to the case of not correcting the target height, and approaches the second target height Z2 before correction. That is, the corrected second target height Z2′ is a target height for control, and an actual target height of the hand 3 remains at the second target height Z2 before correction.”).
The Examiner further notes that, although Farnioli is silent as to the particular technique of correcting the height, changing a target position to correct for an error is conventional, as taught by newly cited Yamamoto.
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 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnioli (US 2023/0063392) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2021/0039256).
Regarding claim 1:
Farnioli teaches 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);
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).
Farnioli is silent as to the specifics of the height compensation or a threshold.
Yamamoto teaches a system and method of compensating for a gravitational torque on a robot arm due to a weight of a load, including correcting a target height by adjusting the target height of the hand to a new target height in response to variation of load information being greater than a predetermined threshold (see at least abstract, ¶0024, Fig. 6A-6B, ¶0088-0091).
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 load compensation system and method as taught by Farnioli with the well-known technique of utilizing a compensation value for a target height when a load deviated from an expected value by more than a predetermined threshold as taught by Yamamoto in order to effectively compensate for deflection caused by the load which may not be directly measurable from joint angles.
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 the controller corrects the target height after the hand has picked up the workpiece (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);
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).
Farnioli is silent as to the specifics of the height compensation or a threshold.
Yamamoto teaches a system and method of compensating for a gravitational torque on a robot arm due to a weight of a load, including correcting a target height by adjusting the target height of the hand to a new target height in response to variation of load information being greater than a predetermined threshold (see at least abstract, ¶0024, Fig. 6A-6B, ¶0088-0091).
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 load compensation system and method as taught by Farnioli with the well-known technique of utilizing a compensation value for a target height when a load deviated from an expected value by more than a predetermined threshold as taught by Yamamoto in order to effectively compensate for deflection caused by the load which may not be directly measurable from joint angles.
Regarding claim 11:
Farnioli discloses A non-transitory storage medium storing a robot control program for causing a computer to perform the method as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached on 5712726919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights