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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16, 18-22 remain pending in the application. The amendment overcomes the nonstatutory double patenting rejection and 112b rejection on record.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2021-036299 filed on 03/08/2021.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stone (US20210237275) in view of Tussy (US20220043896).
Regarding claim 1, Stone teaches a terminal operable by a user for giving instructions to a robot and configured to ([0051]-[0072] disclosing a terminal that allows the user to control the robot which is a wearable head device):
Display, based on first information about the user, an action that is executed by the robot corresponding to the user ([0051]-[0072] disclosing the displaying the trajectory of the robot via a headset device to the user, see specifically [0066]. See [0060]-[0061] wherein the robot simulated trajectory is tailored to a user based on user information such as capabilities and limitations of a worker based on an ID of the worker).
Stone does not teach display, for a user for whom the first information is not registered, at least one of information that prompts the unregistered user to perform re-identification and information that instruct the robot to execute a preset standard action.
Tussy teaches display, for a user for whom the first information is not registered, at least one of information that prompts the unregistered user to perform re-identification and information that instruct the robot to execute a preset standard action ([0090]-[0102] disclosing if a failure happens in identification, the user is presented by options to reidentify using trying again or using a user name and password, it is interpreted that the system does not recognize the user, thus not registered when the identification fails and thus allows to reidentify, the claim requires only one information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Tussy of reidentifying a user that the system did not register as a registered user due to a mistake in authentication such as a bad image to the authentication process as taught by Stone yielding predictable results in order to allow the user to safely be identified with multiple tries thus improving accuracy, safety, and avoiding the unnecessarily requiring a registered user that is mistaken as a non registered user to re-register.
Regarding claim 2, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1 is further configured to display based on first information, an action that is executable by the robot according to user instructions (Stone in at least [0050]-[0073] disclosing a trajectory that is executable by the robot based on the instructions of a user via the terminal).
Regarding claim 3, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the first information is attribute information that represents an attribute of a user (Stone [0060]-[0063] disclosing the attributes including the capability and limitations of a worker).
Regarding claim 4, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the terminal is a wearable device by the user (Stone [0050]-[0073] disclosing the terminal is a wearable headset VR device).
Regarding claim 15, Stone teaches the terminal according to claim 1 is further configured to:
display, in a real space in which the robot is disposed, an action that is executed by the robot correspondingly to the user in a predetermined work (Stone [0050]-[0073] disclosing the displaying on a Augmented reality, i.e., in a real space the predetermined action during the work of the robot).
Regarding claim 18, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the terminal is any one of a PAD mobile terminal, a stationary input/output terminal, a teaching pendant, a head mounted display, a helmet that includes a display portion, and a wristwatch terminal (Stone [0050]-[0073] disclosing the device is a head mounted display).
Regarding claim 19, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches a robot system, comprising: the robot configured to be instructed by the terminal according to claim 1 (Stone [0050]-[0073] disclosing the robot system including the robot and the head display).
Regarding claim 21, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches a method of controlling a terminal operable by a user for giving instructions to a robot, comprising: displaying, based on first information about the user, an action that is executed by the robot correspondingly to the user (Stone [0051]-[0072] disclosing the displaying the trajectory of the robot via a headset device to the user, see specifically [0066]. See [0060]-[0061] wherein the robot simulated trajectory is tailored to a user based on user information such as capabilities and limitations of a worker based on an ID of the worker).
Regarding claim 22, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program of the control method according to claim 21 (Stone [0007] disclosing the non-transitory readable medium storing the program).
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.
Claims 5-7, 9, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stone (US20210237275) in view of Tussy (US20220043896) and Nakazato (US20150352719).
Regarding claim 5, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1. Stone as modified by Tussy does not teach wherein the first information is at least one of a dominant hand of the user, a height of the user, a language used by the user, a length of experience of the user.
Nakazato teaches wherein the first information is at least one of a dominant hand of the user, a height of the user, a language used by the user, a length of experience of the user ([0084]-[0086] disclosing the first information including the dominant hand of a user, the height of a user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of the information including a dominant hand as taught by Nakazato to the user information as taught by Stone as modified by Tussy yielding predictable results in order to select tools in accordance with the dominant hand thus improving the performance of the task and coordination between a robot and a worker.
Regarding claim 6, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1. Stone as modified by Tussy does not teach Is further configured to acquire, as second information for identifying the user at least one of face information of the user, gait information of the user, iris information of the user, brain wave information of the user, blood flow pattern information of the user, and fingerprint information of the user.
Nakazato teaches the robot system according to claim 1,
Is further configured to acquire, as second information for identifying the user at least one of face information of the user, gait information of the user, iris information of the user, brain wave information of the user, blood flow pattern information of the user, and fingerprint information of the user ([0044] disclosing fingerprint to identify an individual).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of the information including a fingerprint identification as taught by Nakazato to the identification ID information as taught by Stone as modified by Tussy yielding predictable results in order to select tools in accordance with the ID of the person improving the performance of the task and coordination between a robot and a worker and for redundancy and verification of Identification.
Regarding claim 7, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1 is further configured to:
display an action that is executed by the robot (Stone [0050]-[0073] disclosing the executable action by the robot are displayed).
Stone does not teach when a dominant arm of the user is a right arm and an action that is executed by the robot when the dominant arm of the user is a left arm.
Nakazato teaches when a dominant arm of the user is a right arm and an action that is executed by the robot when the dominant arm of the user is a left arm ([0084]-[0085] disclosing the actions are selected based on the dominant hand of a user).
Stone teaches displaying the action of a robot, Nakazato teaches the action based on a dominant hand, thus It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display of Stone as modified by Tussy to be combined with the action determined based on the dominant hand as taught by yielding predictable results and allowing the user to know what tool is selected thus improving thus improving the collaboration between robots and human workers. It is also obvious design choice to change the display information which is just the trajectory or action that is taught by Stone yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Stone as modified by Tussy and Nakazato teaches the terminal according to claim 7, is further configured to display as a standard action an action that is executable by the robot when the dominant arm of the user is the right arm (Nakazato [0084]-[0085] disclosing the actions are selected based on the dominant hand of a user, i.e., it is interpreted that the action selected for a right hand is a standard action).
Stone teaches displaying the action of a robot, Nakazato teaches the action based on a dominant hand, thus It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the display of Stone to be combined with the action determined based on the dominant hand as taught by yielding predictable results and allowing the user to know what tool is selected thus improving thus improving the collaboration between robots and human workers. It is also obvious design choice to change the display information which is just the trajectory or action that is taught by Stone yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1 is further configured to:
display, a method for executing the predetermined action (Stone [0050]-[0073] disclosing displaying the predetermined action of the robot).
Stone as modified by Tussy does not teach in a case where a user whose length of experience is longer than a certain length of time attempts to cause the robot to execute a predetermined action.
Nakazato teaches in a case where a user whose length of experience is longer than a certain length of time attempts to cause the robot to execute a predetermined action ([0052] disclosing the operation of the robot is based on the length of time at a worker meeting threshold amount of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or substitute the teaching of Nakazato with the teaching of Stone as modified by Tussy incorporating the length of a experience of a worker to the attribute of the worker yielding predictable results and improving safety and time efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1
is further configured to: display an action trajectory of the robot (Stone [0050]-[0073] disclosing the displaying of the action of a robot).
Stone as modified by Tussy does not teach which is acquired based on a height of the user.
Nakazato teaches which is acquired based on a height of the user ([0055] disclosing the action trajectory based on a height of a user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or substitute the teaching of Nakazato with the teaching of Stone as modified by Tussy incorporating the length of a height of a worker to the attribute of the worker yielding predictable results and improving safety and accuracy of control of the robot.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stone (US20210237275) in view of Nakazato (US20150352719) and Shimizu (US20130144440).
Regarding claim 8, Stone as modified by Tussy and Nakazato teaches the terminal according to claim 7 is further configured to: display an action trajectory of the robot drawn (Stone [0050]-[0073] disclosing displaying the action trajectory of the robot).
Nakazato further teaches when the robot brings a predetermined portion of the robot closer to the user when the dominant arm of the user is the right arm and an action trajectory of the robot drawn when the robot brings the
predetermined portion closer to the user when the dominant arm of the user is the left arm (Nakazato [0084]-[0085] disclosing the actions are selected based on the dominant hand of a user, i.e., it is interpreted that the action selected for a right hand is a standard action).
Shimizu teaches a first action trajectory when the robot brings a predetermined portion of the robot closer to the user when the dominant arm of the user is the right arm and a second action trajectory of the robot drawn when the robot brings the predetermined portion closer to the user when the dominant arm of the user is the left arm (abstract, summary, [0095]-[0102] disclosing the robot presenting the object at a location of the person’s dominant hand, i.e., a first and second trajectories based on which hand ).
Stone as modified by Nakazato teaches the displaying of a robot action based on a user attribute, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Nakazato of the presented trajectory to account for the trajectory being defined by handedness as taught by Shimizu is obvious yielding predictable results in order to display an accurate trajectory taking in consideration attribute including handedness for handing an object to the location of the dominant hand which improves handing of a robot especially when an arm is broken and should not be handed the object.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stone (US20210237275) in view of Tussy (US20220043896), Peterson (US20180300676) and kuffner (US9902061).
Regarding claim 10, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1 is further configured to:
display, an action that is executed by the robot correspondingly to the user in a
predetermined work (Stone [0050]-[0073] disclosing the displaying of the robot actions).
Stone as modified by Tussy does not teach based on language information about the user, using a native language of the user,
Peterson teaches using a native language of the user ([0021] disclosing using a language to display the information stating that the robot is on route to the user).
The combination/substitution of the display in words of the route as taught by Peterson is obvious yielding predictable results for redundancy of the action information and as an obvious design choice of presented information.
Kuffner teaches based on language information about the user, using the native language of the user (col. 15 lines 11-19 disclosing notifying the user in a determined native language of the user).
Stone as modified by Tussy already teaches the displaying of an action, Peterson teaches the displaying of the action in words, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combining the display to match a language that the user understands as taught by Kuffner improves the collaboration between robots and humans and improves safety of operating robots and being around robots by knowing the robot’s intended path or action.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stone (US20210237275) in view of Tussy (US20220043896), Yamashito (US20220390927) and Nakazato (US20150352719).
Regarding claim 11, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1 is further configured to: display information ([0050]-[0073]).
Stone as modified by Tussy does not teach display, in a case where a user whose length of experience is shorter than a certain length of time attempts to cause the robot to execute a predetermined action, information that prompts the user to ask another user whose length of experience is longer than the certain length of time to cause the robot to execute the predetermined action.
Yamashito teaches display, in a case where a user whose attempts to cause the robot to execute a predetermined action, information that prompts the user to ask another user to cause the robot to execute the predetermined action ([0035]-[0039] disclosing based on the authority based on the specialty and qualification and knowledge and administration level such as a line leader “experienced for a time” to allow a person or to display a call that prompts another user to execute the predetermined action, see also [0069] the maintenance mode requires certain actions such as stopping and slowing parts of the robot operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yamashita’s teaching of only allowing authorized workers to perform a task such as allowing driving of an arm with an unlocked state with the attribute of the worker as taught by Stone as modified by Tussy is obvious yielding predictable results improving safety of operation based on the skill of the worker. While Yamashito does not explicitly state that the prompt is to the user to ask another user, the information in the display is obvious design choice and Yamashito teaches the display to prompt the other user that is more experienced.
Yamashito does not teach length of experience is shorter than a certain length of time and a user whose length of experience is longer than the certain length of time.
Nakazato teaches length of experience is shorter than a certain length of time and a user whose length of experience is longer than the certain length of time ([0052] disclosing the operation of the robot is based on the length of time at a worker meeting threshold amount of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Nakazato incorporating the length of a experience of a worker to the attribute of the worker is obvious yielding predictable results and improving safety and time efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the terminal according to claim 1. Stone as modified by Tussy does not teach is further configured to: disable the robot to accept instructions for changing basic settings in the robot from a user whose length of experience is shorter than a certain length of time.
Yamashito teaches disable the robot to accept instructions for changing basic settings in the robot from user whose experience ([0035]-[0039] and [0069]-[0071] disclosing not allowing a user who is not authorized by not meeting the experience to change the settings corresponding to a maintenance mode, herein basic is broadly interpreted and the maintenance mode is interpreted as maintenance mode. On the other hand even the regular normal mode can be interpreted as a normal mode and the robot requires authority to be operated at the normal mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Yamashita’s teaching of only allowing authorized workers to perform a task such as allowing driving of an arm with an unlocked state with the attribute of the worker as taught by Stone as modified by Tussy is obvious yielding predictable results improving safety of operation based on the skill of the worker. While Yamashito does not explicitly state that the prompt is to the user to ask another user, the information in the display is obvious design choice and Yamashito teaches the display to prompt the other user that is more experienced
Nakazato teaches whose length of experience is shorter than a certain length of time ([0052] disclosing the operation of the robot is based on the length of time at a worker meeting threshold amount of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Nakazato incorporating the length of a experience of a worker to the attribute of the worker is obvious yielding predictable results and improving safety and time efficiency.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stone (US20210237275) in view of Tussy (US20220043896) and Sejimo (US20200368909).
Regarding claim 16, Stone teaches the terminal according to claim 1. Stone does not teach is further configured to: instruct the robot to execute the standard action
Sejimo teaches instruct the robot to execute the standard action ([0069] disclosing when a person is not registered the speed of the robot is a minimum speed).
Stone and Sejimo are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, user authentication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Stone to incorporate the teaching of Sejimo to slow down the robot and restrict its movement in order to increase safety when a person is not registered as allowed to use the robot or interact with a robot.
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stone (US20210237275) in view of Tussy (US20220043896) and Laftchiev (US20210173377).
Regarding claim 20, Stone as modified by Tussy teaches the method of manufacturing a product using the robot system according to claim 19.
Laftchiev teaches the method of manufacturing a product using the robot system according to claim 19 ([0009] disclosing manufacturing a product via collaboration between robot and human).
Stone and Laftchiev are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, robotic control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Stone to incorporate the teaching of Laftchiev of manufacturing a product using the method of claim 1. Applying the method of Stone as modified by Tussy to the manufacturing of a product of Laftchiev would improve the production of products by customizing the manufacturing process based on the identified worker.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 07/01/2026 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Wassingbo does not disclose prompting the unregistered user to perform re-identification or instruct the robot to execute a standard action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The newly cited prior art Tussy teaches prompting the user to try to reauthenticate when an authentication fails, thus when an authentication fails it fails to match a recognized individual thus unregistered user is determined temporarily until a match happen because if failure in matching continues the user will be determined as not registered. Wassingbo was previously cited to teach registering the user and not reidentifying the user thus the rejection was necessitated by the amendment requiring the reidentification limitation by removing the “or” limitation from previous claim 17.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20220055222 disclosing the robot moving to the side of dominant hand or dominant eye of a user.
US20180229379 disclosing if a right hand is approaching a robot, to approach it by a robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights