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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, method of claims 10-12 and the storage medium of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The amended claims are not numbered. The preliminary amendment is technically non-compliant. However, the claims are examined based on the claim numbering of the original claims.
See 37 C.F.R. 1.121 Manner of making amendments in application:
(C) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order.
The examiner suggests amending the claims to replace the language “is set up to” with “is configured to.”
For consistency and improved clarity, the examiner suggests the following amendment to the final step of claim 10: “and deflecting the handle piece of the manipulator arm linearly or rotationally simultaneously with the control of the holding device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 recite “the deflection of the manipulator arm.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation in the claims. Claim 1 recites “to deflect the handle piece of the manipulator arm.” The deflection of the handle piece is not necessarily the deflection of the manipulator arm. Therefore, it is unclear what ‘the’ deflection of the manipulator arm is referencing because there is no prior mention of deflecting the manipulator arm. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted such that there is a deflection of the manipulator arm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the BRI of “a storage medium” can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and MPEP 2106.03.II.
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.
(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) 1-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Murakami (US 20170095932 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Murakami teaches
A robot for holding and processing a workpiece, (“In the robot 11 of this embodiment, a hand unit 27 that grips a workpiece 26 may be mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit 12 via a bracket 30 as illustrated in FIG. 4.” See at least [0059])
comprising a controller for controlling a holding device and for controlling a manipulator arm; (“The robot control apparatus 18 moves the distal end part of the arm unit 12” See at least [0037]; “When the hand unit 27 is provided in this manner, a hand opening and closing switch 28 for opening and closing the hand unit 27 is preferably provided on the handle 16A of the robot operating apparatus 13. For example, when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed, a hand action command is sent to the robot control apparatus 18, so that the hand unit 27 is allowed to open and close.” See at least [0059])
and a multi-link manipulator arm which has a handle piece, (“The robot operating apparatus 13 of the first embodiment includes: a force sensor 15 mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit 12; and a handle supporting unit 17 mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit 12 via the force sensor 15, as illustrated in FIG. 2. Specifically, the handle supporting unit 17 supports two rod-shaped handles 16A, 16B.” See at least [0034-0035] and figs. 1-2) wherein the manipulator arm is set up to determine forces exerted on the handle piece of the manipulator arm and to transmit corresponding information to the controller, (“handle supporting unit mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit via the sensor, and transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012])
a holding device informatively connected to the controller for holding the workpiece, (“a hand unit 27 that grips a workpiece 26 may be mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit 12 … hand action command is sent to the robot control apparatus 18, so that the hand unit 27 is allowed to open and close” See at least [0059]) wherein the holding device is set up to move the workpiece linearly or rotationally, and wherein the controller is set up to control the holding device or the manipulator arm to move a position of the workpiece relative to the manipulator arm linearly or rotationally in accordance with the forces determined via the manipulator arm; (“transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012]; “the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is fixed only to the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action unless the action mode described above is switched. The reason will be described below. For example, when moving the workpiece from one flat work-table to another flat work-table, if the posture of the workpiece is rotated during movement, the workpiece may not be stably placed when being placed on the work-table, and workability may be affected. In such a case, fixing the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 to only the translational action can facilitate the action thereof. Therefore, the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is adapted to be switchable to only the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action depending on the application of usage of the robot 11.” See at least [0053])
and the controller is set up to deflect the handle piece of the manipulator arm linearly or rotationally from a starting position simultaneously with the control of the holding device based on the forces determined via the manipulator arm. (“When an operator grips the two handles 16A, 16B with both hands and applies a force in a direction in which the arm unit 12 is moved, a resultant force of the forces acting respectively on the two handles 16A, 16B is input to the force sensor 15 via the handle supporting unit 17. The force sensor 15 detects a direction and a magnitude of the resultant force input thereto, and transmits the direction and the magnitude of the detected resultant force to a robot control apparatus 18 in a form of an electric signal. The robot control apparatus 18 moves the distal end part of the arm unit 12 in accordance with the direction of the resultant force detected by the force sensor 15” See at least [0037]; “The hand unit 27 may be configured to be closed for gripping the workpiece 26 when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed and the hand unit 27 may be configured to be opened to release the workpiece 26 when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed. In addition, the opening action and the closing action of the hand unit 27 may be switched alternately every time when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed. The hand opening and closing switch 28 is also preferably located at a position which allows the operator to press while gripping the handle 16A.” See at least [0060-0061]; Examiner Interpretation: The handle piece is deflected because it is attached to the distal end of the robot (See at least fig. 1) and moves along with the robot’s movements. The holding device is simultaneously controlled because it is also attached to the distal end of the arm ([0059]) which moves.)
Regarding Claim 2,
Murakami further teaches
wherein the robot is a cobot. (“industrial robots that cooperate with human beings are preferably configured to allow human beings to operate an arm unit of the robot as necessary in order to enhance working efficiency.” See at least [0005]; Also see at least fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 3,
Murakami further teaches
wherein the multi-link manipulator arm is adapted at its distal end for receptacle of a tool for processing the workpiece. (“In the robot 11 of this embodiment, a hand unit 27 that grips a workpiece 26 may be mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit 12 via a bracket 30 as illustrated in FIG. 4.” See at least [0059] and fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 4,
Murakami further teaches
wherein the deflection of the manipulator arm is non-linear based on the forces detected via the manipulator arm.(“transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012]; “the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is fixed only to the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action unless the action mode described above is switched.” See at least [0053]; Examiner Interpretation: The rotation is a non-linear deflection.)
Regarding Claim 5,
Murakami further teaches
wherein the deflection of the manipulator arm is linear based on the forces determined via the manipulator arm. (“transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012]; “the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is fixed only to the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action unless the action mode described above is switched.” See at least [0053]; Examiner Interpretation: The translation is a linear deflection.)
Regarding Claim 6,
Murakami further teaches
wherein the controller is arranged to actuate the manipulator arm or to move the proximal end of the manipulator arm linearly or rotationally in accordance with the forces determined via the manipulator arm. (“transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012]; “the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is fixed only to the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action unless the action mode described above is switched.” See at least [0053])
Regarding Claim 8,
Murakami further teaches
wherein the controller is arranged to control the holding device to move the position of the workpiece linearly or rotationally in accordance with the forces determined via the manipulator arm. (“transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012]; “the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is fixed only to the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action unless the action mode described above is switched. The reason will be described below. For example, when moving the workpiece from one flat work-table to another flat work-table, if the posture of the workpiece is rotated during movement, the workpiece may not be stably placed when being placed on the work-table, and workability may be affected. In such a case, fixing the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 to only the translational action can facilitate the action thereof. Therefore, the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is adapted to be switchable to only the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action depending on the application of usage of the robot 11.” See at least [0053])
Regarding Claim 9,
Murakami further teaches
wherein the manipulator arm has a switch. (“Switches for executing various actions of the robot 11 are preferably provided on the two handles 16A, 16B as described above and on the handle supporting unit 17.” See at least [0044])
Regarding Claim 10,
Murakami teaches
A method for controlling a robot, comprising: providing a controller for controlling a holding device and for controlling a manipulator arm, (“The robot control apparatus 18 moves the distal end part of the arm unit 12” See at least [0037]; “When the hand unit 27 is provided in this manner, a hand opening and closing switch 28 for opening and closing the hand unit 27 is preferably provided on the handle 16A of the robot operating apparatus 13. For example, when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed, a hand action command is sent to the robot control apparatus 18, so that the hand unit 27 is allowed to open and close.” See at least [0059])
a multi-link manipulator arm which has a handle piece, (“The robot operating apparatus 13 of the first embodiment includes: a force sensor 15 mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit 12; and a handle supporting unit 17 mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit 12 via the force sensor 15, as illustrated in FIG. 2. Specifically, the handle supporting unit 17 supports two rod-shaped handles 16A, 16B.” See at least [0034-0035] and figs. 1-2) wherein the manipulator arm is set up to determine forces exerted on the handle piece of the manipulator arm and to transmit corresponding information to the controller, (“handle supporting unit mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit via the sensor, and transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012])
and a holding device informatively connected to the controller for holding the workpiece, (“a hand unit 27 that grips a workpiece 26 may be mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit 12 … hand action command is sent to the robot control apparatus 18, so that the hand unit 27 is allowed to open and close” See at least [0059]) wherein the holding device is set up to move the workpiece linearly or rotationally: wherein the controller is set up to control the holding device or the manipulator arm to move a position of the workpiece relative to the manipulator arm linearly or rotationally in accordance with the forces determined via the manipulator arm; (“transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012]; “the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is fixed only to the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action unless the action mode described above is switched. The reason will be described below. For example, when moving the workpiece from one flat work-table to another flat work-table, if the posture of the workpiece is rotated during movement, the workpiece may not be stably placed when being placed on the work-table, and workability may be affected. In such a case, fixing the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 to only the translational action can facilitate the action thereof. Therefore, the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is adapted to be switchable to only the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action depending on the application of usage of the robot 11.” See at least [0053])
and the controller is set up to deflect the handle piece of the manipulator arm linearly or rotationally from a starting position simultaneously with the control of the holding device based on the forces determined via the manipulator arm; (“When an operator grips the two handles 16A, 16B with both hands and applies a force in a direction in which the arm unit 12 is moved, a resultant force of the forces acting respectively on the two handles 16A, 16B is input to the force sensor 15 via the handle supporting unit 17. The force sensor 15 detects a direction and a magnitude of the resultant force input thereto, and transmits the direction and the magnitude of the detected resultant force to a robot control apparatus 18 in a form of an electric signal. The robot control apparatus 18 moves the distal end part of the arm unit 12 in accordance with the direction of the resultant force detected by the force sensor 15” See at least [0037]; “The hand unit 27 may be configured to be closed for gripping the workpiece 26 when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed and the hand unit 27 may be configured to be opened to release the workpiece 26 when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed. In addition, the opening action and the closing action of the hand unit 27 may be switched alternately every time when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed. The hand opening and closing switch 28 is also preferably located at a position which allows the operator to press while gripping the handle 16A.” See at least [0060-0061]; Examiner Interpretation: The handle piece is deflected because it is attached to the distal end of the robot (See at least fig. 1) and moves along with the robot’s movements. The holding device is simultaneously controlled because it is also attached to the distal end of the arm ([0059]) which moves.)
determining the forces exerted on the handle piece of the manipulator arm, transmitting the corresponding information to the controller, (“handle supporting unit mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit via the sensor, and transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012])
holding the workpiece in the holding device, (“a hand unit 27 that grips a workpiece 26 may be mounted on the distal end part of the arm unit 12 … hand action command is sent to the robot control apparatus 18, so that the hand unit 27 is allowed to open and close” See at least [0059])
controlling the holding device or the manipulator arm to move a position of the workpiece relative to the manipulator arm linearly or rotationally in accordance with the forces determined via the manipulator arm, (“transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012]; “the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is fixed only to the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action unless the action mode described above is switched. The reason will be described below. For example, when moving the workpiece from one flat work-table to another flat work-table, if the posture of the workpiece is rotated during movement, the workpiece may not be stably placed when being placed on the work-table, and workability may be affected. In such a case, fixing the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 to only the translational action can facilitate the action thereof. Therefore, the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is adapted to be switchable to only the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action depending on the application of usage of the robot 11.” See at least [0053])
rotational or linear deflection of the handle piece of the manipulator arm simultaneously with the control of the holding device based on the forces determined via the manipulator arm from a starting position. (“When an operator grips the two handles 16A, 16B with both hands and applies a force in a direction in which the arm unit 12 is moved, a resultant force of the forces acting respectively on the two handles 16A, 16B is input to the force sensor 15 via the handle supporting unit 17. The force sensor 15 detects a direction and a magnitude of the resultant force input thereto, and transmits the direction and the magnitude of the detected resultant force to a robot control apparatus 18 in a form of an electric signal. The robot control apparatus 18 moves the distal end part of the arm unit 12 in accordance with the direction of the resultant force detected by the force sensor 15” See at least [0037]; “The hand unit 27 may be configured to be closed for gripping the workpiece 26 when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed and the hand unit 27 may be configured to be opened to release the workpiece 26 when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed. In addition, the opening action and the closing action of the hand unit 27 may be switched alternately every time when the hand opening and closing switch 28 is pressed. The hand opening and closing switch 28 is also preferably located at a position which allows the operator to press while gripping the handle 16A.” See at least [0060-0061]; Examiner Interpretation: The handle piece is deflected because it is attached to the distal end of the robot (See at least fig. 1) and moves along with the robot’s movements. The holding device is simultaneously controlled because it is also attached to the distal end of the arm ([0059]) which moves.)
Regarding Claim 11,
Murakami further teaches
wherein the deflection of the manipulator arm is non-linear based on the forces determined via the manipulator arm. (“transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012]; “the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is fixed only to the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action unless the action mode described above is switched.” See at least [0053]; Examiner Interpretation: The rotation is a non-linear deflection.)
Regarding Claim 12,
Murakami further teaches
wherein the deflection of the manipulator arm is linear based on the forces determined via the manipulator arm. (“transmitting the force detected by the sensor to the control apparatus in a form of an electric signal to move the distal end part of the arm unit in accordance with a direction and a magnitude of the force detected by the sensor,” See at least [0012]; “the action of the distal end part of the arm unit 12 is fixed only to the translational action, to the rotational action, or to the translational and rotational action unless the action mode described above is switched.” See at least [0053]; Examiner Interpretation: The translation is a linear deflection.)
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 (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 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 20170095932 A1) in view of Becroft (US 20150375390 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
Murakami further teaches
its proximal end relative to the holding device. (See at least the proximal end indicated by an arrow annotated by the examiner in fig. 1 provided below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
310
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Murakami does not explicitly teach, but Becroft teaches
wherein the manipulator arm is detachably fixed at its proximal end (“The preferred method of moving the robot platforms about a work area is by an Automatic Guided Vehicle (AGV) 9 which has connected lifting mechanisms 10 allowing it to move under the robot platform and lift it in order to relocate it to a new work location (illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 4).” See at least [0015]; “The AGV 9 then moves to and positions itself under a robot platform 1, moves the robot platform to a predetermined position near the aircraft and over a power connection plug-in point 16, and lowers the robot platform unto lock-down anchor points 22. The lock down anchor may be a mechanism that moves an anchor connected with the platform into a hook type device or striker attached with the floor, or in other applications may be an extendable latch that connects with a striker fixed to the platform. … The AGV 9 then proceeds to another movable robot platform 1 and repeats the sequence.” See at least [0018]; Examiner Interpretation: The robot platform is the proximal end of the robot and it is detachably fixed because it can be lifted to be relocated.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Murakami to further include the teachings of Becroft with a reasonable expectation of success to improve expandability of the robot system such that the robot(s) can service larger areas. (See at least [0002] and [0011])
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US 20170095932 A1) in view of Noland (US 20240149449 A1).
Regarding Claim 13,
Murakami further teaches
controlling a robot for performing a method according to claim 10. (See citations of Murakami in the rejection of claim 10 above.)
Murakami does not explicitly teach, but Noland teaches
A storage medium with software controlling a robot (“a machine readable storage medium comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: … move the robotic manipulator according to the inputs.” See at least [0025]; “the memory device 236 and/or the storage device(s) 238 may store processor executable instructions (e.g., firmware or software) for the processor(s) 234 to execute. In addition, one or more control regimes for various robotic manipulators” See at least [0057])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Murakami to further include the teachings of Noland with a reasonable expectation of success to implement a storage medium because it is an obvious component for a robot’s control apparatus that facilitates automatic control of the robot by a computer/processor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Komatsu (US 20150209961 A1) is pertinent because it discusses a robot controlled by an operator applying a force using a handle.
Bogart (US 20230311321 A1) is pertinent because it discusses programming by physical interaction with the robot arm involving tactile and manual manipulation.
Rabindran (US 20200315721 A1) is pertinent because it discusses manually moving a robot joint including moving a proximal end.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karston G Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-8480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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 (571)270-3976. 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.
/KARSTON G. EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3657