DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 01/03/2025. Claims 1-13 are pending and examined 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) ‐ (d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2022/117370, filed on 07/22/2022. PCT/JP2023/026552 was filed on 07/20/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“Input unit”, “simulation unit”, “display unit”, “accumulation unit” and “transition unit” in claim 11.
“Input unit”, “simulation unit”, “display unit”, “first accumulation unit”, “transition unit”, “reception unit” and “second accumulation unit” in claim 13.
Fig 2 of submitted drawing describes input unit, simulation unit, display unit, accumulation unit, transition unit and reception unit are included into controller. Submitted specification does not describe “first accumulation unit” and “second accumulation unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “first accumulation unit” and “second accumulation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Submitted specification describe “first accumulation unit” and “second accumulation unit” in [0007] of submitted specification, which is very similar to the claim limitation. However, from the recited claim language and submitted specification, it is not clear about the structure of “first accumulation unit” and “second accumulation unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 11 and 13), which recites “a higher speed than actual time” is not clear. It is not clear what is referred by “higher speed”. Is it referring simulate the speed at higher speed that real/physical speed? Is it referring the computation level is faster than real time robot movement? Or something else. For the examination purposes, the claim limitation is interpreted as the computation level is faster than real time robot movement.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
Regarding claim 5, which recites an equation/relationship for calculating shortening rate. It is not clear how this relationship is related to claim 1. More specifically is it related to robot control? Or command generation? Or something else?
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the specification lacks structure that is clearly linked to the limitations interpreted under 112(f) of claim limitation “first accumulation unit” and “second accumulation unit” of claim 13. Submitted specification describe “first accumulation unit” and “second accumulation unit” in [0007] of submitted specification, which is very similar to the claim limitation. However, from the recited claim language and submitted specification, it is not clear about the structure of “first accumulation unit” and “second accumulation unit”.
Because there is no disclosure of adequate structure to perform the claimed function, the specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, which recites “the shortening rate is determined on a basis of at least one of a frequency of appearance, a spatial density, or a coping difficulty of a disturbance element existing in the actual environment”, the specification lacks written description as to how this is achieved. The specification does not disclose the subject matter of claim 6. Fig 10, shows parameters for autonomous driving. However, it is not clear whether those are related to shortening rate calculation or not.
Regarding claim 7, which recites “the robot includes a household robot to be operated at a private residence, and the shortening rate is determined on a basis of an attribute of time at the private residence”, the specification lacks written description as to how this is achieved. The specification does not disclose the subject matter of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, which recites “the robot includes a wheeled-platform robot to be operated in one of a factory or a warehouse, and the shortening rate is determined on a basis of an attribute of a type of the factory or the warehouse”, the specification lacks written description as to how this is achieved. The specification does not disclose the subject matter of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, which recites “wherein the robot includes a store robot to be operated in a store, and the shortening rate is determined on a basis of an attribute of time in the store”, the specification lacks written description as to how this is achieved. The specification does not disclose the subject matter of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, which recites “the robot includes an autonomous driving robot that runs on a road, and the shortening rate is determined on a basis of an attribute of a type of the road”, the specification lacks written description as to how this is achieved. The specification does not disclose the subject matter of claim 10. Fig 11, shows various types of roads. However, it is not clear whether those are related to shortening rate calculation or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0047339 (“Sawada”), and further in view of US 2019/0329405 (“Atohira”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 11), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Sawada discloses a method for controlling a (see at least [0044], where “The robot controller 3 controls the robot 2 in accordance with a pre-generated operation program.”; see also fig 7), the method comprising:
a step of receiving an operation command for the (see at least [0045], where “setting a plurality of work jobs to be executed by the robot in the plurality of work jobs in accordance with an input to the user interface”);
a step of using a (see at least [0067], [0072], [0079], fig 5 and fig 33), and acquiring a predicted observation value obtained as a result (see at least fig 14 and [0044], where “the path information includes a plurality of position and attitude target values listed in time series.”);
a step of displaying the predicted observation value toward the operator (see at least [0079] and fig 11);
a step of accumulating task information including the operation command and the predicted observation value (see at least fig 2, operation program storage unit and [0004]); and
a step of transmitting the accumulated task information to the (see at least [0113] and [0173]).
Sawada does not disclose the following limitation:
plurality of robots.
However, Atohira discloses a method wherein a simulation device is connected with plural robots and plural robots are controlled via controllers, see at least fig 12, [0051] and [0019].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sawada to incorporate the teachings of Atohira by including the above feature for increasing efficiency and reducing cost by controlling many robots using the simulated and observed value.
Regarding claim 2, Sawada further discloses a method comprising: a step of receiving the task information (see at least [0045], where “setting, in accordance with user input (ex. an input to a user interface), a first restricting environmental condition that is an execution restricting condition specifies an operation environment of the robot 2 for each of a plurality of one of the work jobs to be executed by the robot 2, in accordance with an input to a user interface; setting a plurality of work jobs to be executed by the robot in the plurality of work jobs in accordance with an input to the user interface; and determining, in an execution flow for defining an execution order of the plurality of work jobs set by the second condition setting unit, whether at least one of the work jobs satisfies the environmental condition based on the execution order. In some examples, the programming support apparatus 100 may be configured to: set an environmental condition of the robot at one or more execution timings associated with the work jobs in accordance with user input; select a plurality of the work jobs in accordance with the user input;”);
a step of accumulating the received task information (see at least [0072]); and
a step of causing the plurality of robots to operate in an actual environment, in accordance with the operation command included in the accumulated task information (see at least [0053], where “The environmental state means a state that actually occurs in the work environment of the robot 2 at each timing in the execution flow when the robot 2 operates in accordance with the execution flow.”; see also [0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Sawada further discloses a device wherein the simulation unit includes a plurality of simulators, and each simulator of the plurality of simulators simulates an operation of at least one robot model of the plurality of robot models (see at least fig 15 and [0067]).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Sawada further discloses a system that controls a plurality of robots (see citation on claim 1 above), the system comprising
the plurality of robots, and a control device for the plurality of robots (see citation on claim 1 above),
wherein the control device includes:
an input unit that receives an operation command for the plurality of robots from an operator (see citation on claim 1 above);
a simulation unit that includes a plurality of robot models and an environment model corresponding to the plurality of robots, simulates an operation of the plurality of robot models in the environment model at a higher speed than actual time on a basis of the operation command, and outputs a predicted observation value obtained as a result (see citation on claim 1 above);
a display unit that displays the predicted observation value toward the operator (see citation on claim 1 above);
a first accumulation unit that accumulates task information including the operation command and the predicted observation value (see citation on claim 1 above); and
a transmission unit that transmits the task information accumulated in the first accumulation unit to the plurality of robots (see citation on claim 1 above), and
each robot of the plurality of robots includes:
a reception unit that receives the task information from the control device (see at least fig 1, where robot controller receives task information from programming support apparatus);
a second accumulation unit that accumulates the task information received by the reception unit (see at least [0113] and [0132]); and
a control unit that causes the robot to operate in an actual environment, in accordance with the operation command included in the task information accumulated in the second accumulation unit (see at least [0044]). Rejection relies on Atohira for plural robots, see citation on claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0047339 (“Sawada”), and in view of US 2019/0329405 (“Atohira”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,335,962 (“Rosenberg”).
Regarding claim 3, Sawada further discloses a method comprising: a step of acquiring an actual observation value obtained as a result of causing the plurality of robots to operate in the actual environment (see at least [0052]).
Sawada in view of Atohira does not disclose the following limitation:
a step of detecting an abnormality, on a basis of a comparison between the predicted observation value and the actual observation value.
However, Rosenberg discloses a method wherein a step of detecting an abnormality, on a basis of a comparison between the predicted observation value and the actual observation value (see at least fig 1, col 18, lines 6-24).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sawada in view of Atohira to incorporate the teachings of Rosenberg by including the above feature for avoiding any accident during task performance by detecting abnormality.
Regarding claim 4, Rosenberg further discloses a method comprising a step of, when the abnormality is detected, shifting control on the robot having the abnormality detected, to real-time control to be performed by the operator (see at least fig 7 and col 21, lines 20-24, where “The robot commands may or may not be updated based on the detected fault. For instance, if the diagnosis reveals a fault that requires additional operations for the robot to perform, the robot commands are updated to reflect those adjustments.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
SOHANA TANJU KHAYER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657C
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights