Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/954,615 and the claims filed on 11/21/2024.
3. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 11, the term “in a case where” recited in line 2 of the claim should read “wherein when” to avoid a conditional limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
6. Claims 1, 4, 18, 19, and 20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 19, and 20 of Application No. 18/954,718. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
7. Claims 1, 4, 18, 19, and 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 19, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/954,718 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the co-pending application, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations are provided in bold):
A control assistance system for assisting control of a robot capable of changing a relative positional relationship between a workpiece and the robot that processes the workpiece, the system comprising circuitry configured to:
acquire a workpiece model indicating a plurality of working areas of the workpiece;
acquire a robot model indicating the robot having an end effector;
virtually execute, for each of a plurality of candidate positional relationships that are candidates for the relative positional relationship between the workpiece and the robot, a predetermined process in at least one of the working areas by the end effector of the robot placed in the candidate positional relationship, by a simulation based on the workpiece model and the robot model;
identify, for each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships, a set of one or more of the working areas having processed under the candidate positional relationship in the simulation, as a working area set;
determine the relative positional relationship from the plurality of candidate positional relationships based on the working area set of each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships; and
control the robot placed in a real working space, based on the determined relative positional relationship.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an
element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well
settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present
application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as
before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.
App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims
are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations
provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided
claim limitations.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in
at least claims 3, 9, and 10 of the co-pending application. Although conflicting claims are not
identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or
unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the
level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an
element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient
if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184
(CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced
element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader),
they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and
likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 19 of the co-pending application, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations are provided in bold):
A method executable by a control assistance system that includes at least one processor and assists control of a robot capable of changing a relative positional relationship between a workpiece and the robot that processes the workpiece, the method comprising:
acquiring a workpiece model indicating a plurality of working areas of the workpiece;
acquiring a robot model indicating the robot having an end effector;
virtually executing, for each of a plurality of candidate positional relationships that are candidates for the relative positional relationship between the workpiece and the robot, a predetermined process in at least one of the working areas by the end effector of the robot placed in the candidate positional relationship, by a simulation based on the workpiece model and the robot model;
identifying, for each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships, a set of one or more of the working areas having processed under the candidate positional relationship in the simulation, as a working area set;
determining the relative positional relationship from the plurality of candidate positional relationships based on the working area set of each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships; and
controlling the robot placed in a real working space, based on the determined relative positional relationship.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an
element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well
settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present
application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as
before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.
App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims
are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations
provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided
claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 20 of the co-pending application, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations are provided in bold):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions for causing a computer to function as a control assistance system that assists control of a robot capable of changing a relative positional relationship between a workpiece and the robot that processes the workpiece, the instructions causing the computer to execute:
acquiring a workpiece model indicating a plurality of working areas of the workpiece;
acquiring a robot model indicating the robot having an end effector;
virtually executing, for each of a plurality of candidate positional relationships that are candidates for the relative positional relationship between the workpiece and the robot, a predetermined process in at least one of the working areas by the end effector of the robot placed in the candidate positional relationship, by a simulation based on the workpiece model and the robot model;
identifying, for each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships, a set of one or more of the working areas having processed under the candidate positional relationship in the simulation, as a working area set;
determining the relative positional relationship from the plurality of candidate positional relationships based on the working area set of each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships; and
controlling the robot placed in a real working space, based on the determined relative positional relationship.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an
element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well
settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present
application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as
before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.
App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims
are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations
provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided
claim limitations.
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.
8. Claim 9 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.
Regarding Claim 9, the term “refer to a transition of the processed count according to the processing order of the plurality of working areas; and select the working area set constituted by the one or more working areas whose degree of reduction in the processed count is less than a predetermined threshold” recited in lines 5-9 of claim 9 is deemed to be indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. It is unclear to the Examiner what is meant by this term, both in individual pieces and as a whole. For example, by using the term “transition of the processed count,” it is unclear as to how the processed count transitions. The processed count has already been defined in claim 7, which claim 9 depends upon, as a number of times a working area is processed in the simulation. It is unclear as to how this number ‘transitions.’ Further, it is unclear as to what the “degree of reduction” is meant by. Therefore, the claim has been determined to be indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the term “refer to a transition of the processed count according to the processing order of the plurality of working areas; and select the working area set constituted by the one or more working areas whose degree of reduction in the processed count is less than a predetermined threshold” to recite the phenomenon wherein as the number of available workpieces to determine the processing order decreases, the amount of possible ordering combinations decreases. Support for this interpretation is found in the Examiner’s understanding of paragraph [0043] of the specification of the instant application and Figure 6 of the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1, 4, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall).
Regarding Claim 1, Unnerstall teaches a control assistance system for assisting control of a robot capable of changing a relative positional relationship between a workpiece and the robot that processes the workpiece, the system comprising circuitry ([0060] via “… controlled by a higher-level master computer with a database connected to it ….”) configured to:
acquire a workpiece model indicating a plurality of working areas of the workpiece ([0035] via “According to a further advantageous embodiment variant, the workpiece is subdivided into processing areas before step e), in particular in the case of several detected defects.”);
acquire a robot model indicating the robot having an end effector ([0046] via “At least one grinding tool is designed as a robot, which is connected to a computer and has a supporting device attached to an arm of the robot, …, wherein the arm is movable under computer control.”);
virtually execute, for each of a plurality of candidate positional relationships that are candidates for the relative positional relationship between the workpiece and the robot, a predetermined process in at least one of the working areas by the end effector of the robot placed in the candidate positional relationship ([0029] via “The pre-simulation of a grinding or polishing process before the grinding or polishing is carried out ensures that the respective defects can be automatically processed with the available grinding or polishing tools.”), ([0070] via “Before the grinding tools 7 of the grinding station 3 are controlled by the master computer, a simulation of possible movements of the grinding tool 7 for processing the respective defect is carried out in advance.”), ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”), by a simulation based on the workpiece model and the robot model ([0029] via “The pre-simulation of a grinding or polishing process before the grinding or polishing is carried out ensures that the respective defects can be automatically processed with the available grinding or polishing tools.”), ([0062] via “The optical scanning device 6
scans the surface of the workpiece 5, preferably by applying a light beam. The reflected radiation is detected by a detector and any defects found on the surface of the workpiece 5
are stored digitally in a second database.”);
identify, for each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships, a set of one or more of the working areas having processed under the candidate positional relationship in the simulation, as a working area set ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”);
determine the relative positional relationship from the plurality of candidate positional relationships based on the working area set of each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”); and
control the robot placed in a real working space, based on the determined relative positional relationship ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”), ([0076] via “In particular, the calculation of the control of the grinding tools 7 and, in the subsequent polishing process, also of the polishing tools 8 is carried out with the aid of software in such a way that the defective area of the workpiece 5 to be processed is processed with optimized speed.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to virtually execute the predetermined process by the simulation according to a constraint condition that the robot operates normally and no interference is detected ([0071] via “If it is determined during such a simulation that automatic processing of the defect by the grinding tool 7 is not possible, for example due to an unfavorable position of the defect for automatic processing, the coordinates of this defect are transferred to the master computer and displayed to an employee, preferably visualized on a screen.”), ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding.”), ([0077] via “When processing the defects, it is also taken into account that, in the case of several grinding or polishing tools working simultaneously, the defects can be processed in parallel without collisions between the grinding or polishing tools or between the robots and the robot arms, on each of which such a grinding or polishing tool is arranged.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to control the robot placed in the real working space, so as to move to a stop position in the real working space corresponding to the determined relative positional relationship and process the workpiece in one or more of the working areas at the stop position ([0023] – [0025] via “d) Forwarding of the setting data for the grinding or polishing tool (7, 8) determined during the simulation to a master computer; e) Transfer of the determined processing data for processing the defect (1) to the grinding or polishing tool (7, 8); f) Processing of the defect (1) by the grinding or polishing tool (7, 8).”), ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Nambi et al. (US 12226895 B1 hereinafter Nambi).
Regarding Claim 2, Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the circuitry is configured to set each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships by an optimization method that optimizes a number of the working areas constituting the working area set identified based on the simulation.
However, Nambi teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to set each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships by an optimization method that optimizes a number of the working areas constituting the working area set identified based on the simulation (Col. 20 lines 5-12, where “The process 800 may proceed by determining a grasp point of the item based on the at least one attribute, as at 806. For example, one or more grasp points of the item may be determined using various processing algorithms, such as edge detection, surface detection, feature detection, machine learning, and/or various other processing techniques or algorithms, as well as based on the at least one attribute of the item.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nambi wherein the circuitry is configured to set each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships by an optimization method that optimizes a number of the working areas constituting the working area set identified based on the simulation. Doing so assists in determining an appropriate number of working areas to perform the task, as stated above by Nambi.
15. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Oridate et al. (US 20230405818 A1 hereinafter Oridate).
Regarding Claim 5, Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the circuitry is configured to determine the relative positional relationship based on a number of the working areas constituting the working area set in each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships.
However, Oridate teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to determine the relative positional relationship based on a number of the working areas constituting the working area set in each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships ([0089] via “… arranging a set of synthetic markers on the surface of the target object; scanning the target object to determine a respective location of each synthetic marker of the set of synthetic markers and a respective distance between the robotic system and each marker of the set of the set of synthetic markers; localizing the target object in the coordinate system of the robotic system based on the respective location of each synthetic marker of the set of synthetic markers and the respective distance between the robotic system and each marker of the set of the set of synthetic markers.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Oridate wherein the circuitry is configured to determine the relative positional relationship based on a number of the working areas constituting the working area set in each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships. Doing so localizes the entirety of the workpiece relative to the robot, such that the positional relationship between the robot and the workpiece is known for each working area, as stated above by Oridate, such that the robot may be able to perform a task in relation to the entirety of the workpiece, as stated by Oridate ([0034] via “Based on localizing the target object 104 with respect to the coordinate system of the mobile decontamination system 102, the system can generate a path over the surface of the target object 104. The mobile decontamination system 102 can further translate the path into a trajectory for the tool 106 to traverse the surface of the target object 104 in real life.”).
16. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Oridate et al. (US 20230405818 A1 hereinafter Oridate), and further in view of Kamfors et al. (US 20240411319 A1 hereinafter Kamfors).
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 5, but is silent on wherein the circuitry is configured to determine, as the relative positional relationship, the candidate positional relationship in which the working area set having a largest number of the working areas is obtained.
However, Kamfors teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to determine, as the relative positional relationship, the candidate positional relationship in which the working area set having a largest number of the working areas is obtained ([0109] via “The method is for use when mapping an area, such as a shadowed area, and the method comprises detecting 313
one (or more) object(s) and the distance(s) to the object(s) (including the direction or in a direction to the object(s)). The robotic work tool then changes position 316 (such as moving to a second position as discussed in relation to FIGS. 2C, 2D, 2F and 2G) and detects 319 one (or more) second object(s) and the distance(s) to the second object(s) (including the direction or in a direction to the second object(s)). This enables for all or most objects in an area, such as a shadowed area, to be detected and mapped.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kamfors wherein the circuitry is configured to determine, as the relative positional relationship, the candidate positional relationship in which the working area set having a largest number of the working areas is obtained. Doing so maximizes the amount of work the robot can do with respect to the workpiece from a single positional relationship, as stated above by Kamfors.
17. Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Yaeger (US 12111631 B1 hereinafter Yaeger).
Regarding Claim 7, Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the circuitry is configured to: identify, for each of the plurality of working areas, a number of times the working area is processed by the end effector in the simulation, as a processed count; and determine the relative positional relationship based on the processed count of each of the plurality of working areas.
However, Yaeger teaches to identify, for each of the plurality of working areas, a number of times the working area is processed by the end effector in the simulation, as a processed count (Col. 24 lines 39-47, where “After generating a set of tool paths and tool selections (e.g., an initial set at step 802), the automated tool path creation process 800
determines, at step 804, if a predetermined number of simulations has been previously performed. If the predetermined number of simulations has not yet been met, the automated tool path creation process 800 proceeds to step 806 and performs a simulation (e.g., a computer-implemented simulation) of application of the generated tool paths and tool selections.”); and
determine the relative positional relationship based on the processed count of each of the plurality of working areas (Col. 6 lines 24-43, where “In some embodiments, the integrated scanner 304 is configured to obtain scan data for a workpiece positioned within the working area 308 and tools 312 positioned within the tool holder 314. For example, in some embodiments, the tool holder 314 can be positioned within the working area 308 such that an integrated scanner 304 positioned or positionable to scan the working area 308 would include the tool holder 314 and the associated tools 312 within a field of view or scannable area. … The integrated scanner 304 is configured to provide real-world (e.g. actual) scan data of a workpiece and/or a tool for use in generation of CAD/CAM data, as discussed in greater detail below.”), (Col. 24 lines 39-47, recited above), (Col. 24 lines 51-60, where “At step 808, the results of the simulation (e.g., the generated digital model of the target part) are evaluated to determine if the simulation, and by extension the selected tool paths and tool selections, produced an acceptable result. If the results are acceptable, the automated tool path creation process 800 proceeds to step 810 and the instructions are saved to a database. At step 812, the computer-readable code is converted into CAM manufacturing system 302
code, e.g., G-Code, and output to the CAM manufacturing system 302 (as discussed below with respect to step 230).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yaeger wherein the circuitry is configured to: identify, for each of the plurality of working areas, a number of times the working area is processed by the end effector in the simulation, as a processed count; and determine the relative positional relationship based on the processed count of each of the plurality of working areas. Doing so requires sufficient simulation data such that the work processing data may be seen acceptable in performing the work processing, as stated by Yaeger (Col. 24 lines 43-60, where “If the predetermined number of simulations has not yet been met, the automated tool path creation process 800 proceeds to step 806 and performs a simulation (e.g., a computer-implemented simulation) of application of the generated tool paths and tool selections. … At step 808, the results of the simulation (e.g., the generated digital model of the target part) are evaluated to determine if the simulation, and by extension the selected tool paths and tool selections, produced an acceptable result. If the results are acceptable, the automated tool path creation process 800 proceeds to step 810
and the instructions are saved to a database. At step 812, the computer-readable code is converted into CAM manufacturing system 302 code, e.g., G-Code, and output to the CAM manufacturing system 302 (as discussed below with respect to step 230).”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry is configured to: determine the candidate positional relationship corresponding to the selected working area set as the relative positional relationship ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”).
Unnerstall is silent on to select the working area set constituted by one or more of the working areas whose processed count meets a predetermined criterion.
However, Yaeger teaches to select the working area set constituted by one or more of the working areas whose processed count meets a predetermined criterion (Col. 24 lines 39-57, where “After generating a set of tool paths and tool selections (e.g., an initial set at step 802), the automated tool path creation process 800 determines, at step 804, if a predetermined number of simulations has been previously performed. If the predetermined number of simulations has not yet been met, the automated tool path creation process 800 proceeds to step 806 and performs a simulation (e.g., a computer-implemented simulation) of application of the generated tool paths and tool selections. … At step 808, the results of the simulation (e.g., the generated digital model of the target part) are evaluated to determine if the simulation, and by extension the selected tool paths and tool selections, produced an acceptable result. If the results are acceptable, the automated tool path creation process 800
proceeds to step 810 and the instructions are saved to a database.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yaeger wherein the circuitry is configured to: select the working area set constituted by one or more of the working areas whose processed count meets a predetermined criterion. Doing so requires sufficient simulation data such that the work processing data may be seen acceptable in performing the work processing, as stated above by Yaeger.
18. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Yaeger (US 12111631 B1 hereinafter Yaeger), and further in view of Churchill et al. (US 20240165828 A1 hereinafter Churchill) and Sugano (JP 2004307111 A hereinafter Sugano).
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 8, but is silent on wherein the workpiece model further indicates a processing order of the plurality of working areas, and wherein the circuitry is configured to: refer to a transition of the processed count according to the processing order of the plurality of working areas; and select the working area set constituted by the one or more working areas whose degree of reduction in the processed count is less than a predetermined threshold.
However, Churchill teaches wherein the workpiece model further indicates a processing order of the plurality of working areas ([0070] via “Pick planning and simulation engine 703 is operable to perform at least one of pick planning and pick simulation based on data associated with robotic picking site 103. In one aspect, pick planning and simulation engine
703 obtains object data from data processing engine 702 and analyzes the data to determine at least one pick order for picking objects for unloading purposes.”), and wherein the circuitry is configured to:
refer to a transition of the processed count according to the processing order of the plurality of working areas ([0070] via “Pick planning and simulation engine 703 is operable to perform at least one of pick planning and pick simulation based on data associated with robotic picking site 103. In one aspect, pick planning and simulation engine 703 obtains object data from data processing engine 702 and analyzes the data to determine at least one pick order for picking objects for unloading purposes.”), ([0078] via “At step 303, the process comprises performing at least one of pick planning and pick simulation. Pick planning and simulation may be performed as described above in association with pick planning and simulation engine 703. In one aspect, pick planning may comprise ranking of objects based on object features wherein the ranking indicates at least one of a predicted next best pick and predicted best pick order for a plurality of objects. In one aspect, pick planning comprises simulating a predicted outcome associated with picking one or more objects and uses the simulated outcome in order to perform pick planning (e.g. ranking of objects).”), ([0083] via “The process may return to at least one of steps 302 (to process the newly obtained pick area data to at least one of identify objects and object features and determine a new pick plan and corresponding pick data and/or pick instructions) and 305 (to provide pick data and/or instructions associated with a previous pick plan which, via the verification step, has been determined to remain valid).”), (Note: See interpretation of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. Further, see Figure 8 of Churchill.).
Further, Sugano teaches to select the working area set constituted by the one or more working areas whose degree of reduction in the processed count is less than a predetermined threshold ([0016] via “According to the above method, the stowed article array arranged above the previously formed stowed article array is formed by the combination of the remaining articles excluding the articles forming the stowed article array. Since the stowed article array is formed first in this manner, the type of the article shape of the remaining articles and the quantity of the articles are reduced, and the time required to obtain the stowed article array is reduced by the combination of these remaining articles.”), ([0062] via “Then, based on the remaining data, a search is made for a surface that can be formed by inefficiently stacking without effectively using the case mounting surface. That is, a case group in which a surface can be formed with the number of cases 6 one less than the first pattern (reference pattern) is searched. At this time, <6> patterns are searched in order from the smaller number of <4> patterns.”), (Note: See interpretation of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above. Within Sugano, the Examiner interprets all of the remaining cases being stacked as satisfying the predetermined threshold.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Churchill wherein the workpiece model further indicates a processing order of the plurality of working areas, and wherein the circuitry is configured to: refer to a transition of the processed count according to the processing order of the plurality of working areas. Doing so optimizes the processing of the plurality of the working areas such that the most optimal way to process that plurality of working areas is verified and executed, as stated above by Churchill in paragraph [0078].
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sugano wherein the circuitry is configured to: select the working area set constituted by the one or more working areas whose degree of reduction in the processed count is less than a predetermined threshold. Doing so efficiently groups and processes the number of available workpieces such that the time required to simulate the ordering combinations is reduced when there are less groups, as stated above by Sugano in paragraph [0016].
19. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Yaeger (US 12111631 B1 hereinafter Yaeger), and further in view of JP 6921448 B1 (hereinafter JP 6921448 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 8, but is silent on wherein the circuitry is configured to, in a case where two or more of the candidate positional relationships corresponding to the working area set constituted by the one or more working areas whose processed count meets the predetermined criterion are obtained, determine one of the obtained two or more candidate positional relationships as the relative positional relationship, based on a physical quantity related to a motion of the robot.
However, JP 6921448 B1 teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to, in a case where two or more of the candidate positional relationships corresponding to the working area set constituted by the one or more working areas whose processed count meets the predetermined criterion are obtained, determine one of the obtained two or more candidate positional relationships as the relative positional relationship, based on a physical quantity related to a motion of the robot (Page 4 paragraph 3 via “When the simulation result is determined to be successful after repeating the predetermined times, the loop determination unit 65 determines that the operation according to the operation command cannot be performed, and terminates the command. When there is a simulation result determined to be successful, the loop determination unit 65 transmits the action data and the simulation result used in the simulation to the actual operation control unit 70. If two or more of the simulation results are determined to be successful, the loop determination unit 65 may select one.”), (Page 6 paragraph 5 via “When the repetition of a predetermined number of times is completed (YES in step S7) and one or more of the simulation results are successful (YES in step S8), the simulation unit 60 performs the simulation in which the travel time to the destination is the shortest. The behavior data used is selected (step S9). Then, based on this action data, the actual operation control unit 70 moves the robot body 1 in the real space (step S10).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the travel time to the destination of JP 6921448 B1 as the physical quantity, as the physical quantity is defined in paragraphs [0040], [0043], and [0048] of the specification of the instant application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of JP 6921448 B1 wherein the circuitry is configured to, in a case where two or more of the candidate positional relationships corresponding to the working area set constituted by the one or more working areas whose processed count meets the predetermined criterion are obtained, determine one of the obtained two or more candidate positional relationships as the relative positional relationship, based on a physical quantity related to a motion of the robot. Doing so applies an additional optimization criterion to select the most viable option when a first criterion is satisfied by multiple options, as stated above by JP 6921448 B1 on page 6 paragraph 5.
20. Claim(s) 11, 12, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Ma et al. (US 12202150 B2 hereinafter Ma).
Regarding Claim 11, Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to, virtually executing the predetermined process in at least one of the one or more remaining working areas by the simulation, for each of a plurality of new candidate positional relationships that are candidates for a new relative positional relationship of the robot with respect to the workpiece ([0029] via “The pre-simulation of a grinding or polishing process before the grinding or polishing is carried out ensures that the respective defects can be automatically processed with the available grinding or polishing tools.”), ([0062] via “The optical scanning device 6 scans the surface of the workpiece 5, preferably by applying a light beam. The reflected radiation is detected by a detector and any defects found on the surface of the workpiece 5 are stored digitally in a second database.”) ([0070] via “Before the grinding tools 7 of the grinding station 3 are controlled by the master computer, a simulation of possible movements of the grinding tool 7 for processing the respective defect is carried out in advance.”), ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”);
identifying the working area set for each of the plurality of new candidate positional relationships ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”); and
determining the new relative positional relationship from the plurality of new candidate positional relationships based on the working area set of each of the plurality of new candidate positional relationships ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”).
Unnerstall is silent on in a case where there are one or more remaining working areas that are not processed by the robot in one or more of the relative positional relationships, execute an iterative process for the one or more remaining working areas.
However, Ma teaches in a case where there are one or more remaining working areas that are not processed by the robot in one or more of the relative positional relationships, execute an iterative process for the one or more remaining working areas (Col. 8 lines 62 – Col. 9 line 7, where “In some exemplary embodiments, a method for sorting the objects in the first region may include: 1. selecting, from the first region, an object closest to a current position of the first robot as a current object, and schedule the instruction corresponding to the current object to the first object grabbing sequence; 2. selecting, from the first region, an object that has not been selected before and closest to the current object as a new current object, and schedule the instruction corresponding to the new current object to the first object grabbing sequence; and 3. repeating step 2 when there are still objects not selected in the first region.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ma in a case where there are one or more remaining working areas that are not processed by the robot in one or more of the relative positional relationships, execute an iterative process for the one or more remaining working areas. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale E: “Obvious To Try” – Choosing From a Finite Number of Identified, Predictable Solutions, With a Reasonable Expectation of Success.” Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale E is satisfied: a finding that one or ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solution with a reasonable expectation of success. While the invention of Unnerstall teaches the steps of “virtually executing the predetermined process …; identifying the working area set …; and determining the new relative positional relationship …,” Unnerstall is silent on repeating these exact steps for any remaining working areas. Nonetheless, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that repeating the same steps again would result in the same outcome, as otherwise, it is the same exact process, only the working area being the changing variable. This conclusion is supported by Ma recognizing that the same process can be repeated for any related remaining objects, cited above. Therefore, the Examiner submits that the implementation of this known technique of iteratively repeating steps would have predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success, and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate.
Regarding Claim 12, modified reference Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 11, but is silent on wherein the circuitry is configured to set the new candidate positional relationships such that the robot processes at least the working area to be processed first among the one or more remaining working areas.
However, Ma teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to set the new candidate positional relationships such that the robot processes at least the working area to be processed first among the one or more remaining working areas (Col. 8 lines 62 – Col. 9 line 7, where “In some exemplary embodiments, a method for sorting the objects in the first region may include: 1. selecting, from the first region, an object closest to a current position of the first robot as a current object, and schedule the instruction corresponding to the current object to the first object grabbing sequence; 2. selecting, from the first region, an object that has not been selected before and closest to the current object as a new current object, and schedule the instruction corresponding to the new current object to the first object grabbing sequence; and 3. repeating step 2 when there are still objects not selected in the first region.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ma wherein the circuitry is configured to set the new candidate positional relationships such that the robot processes at least the working area to be processed first among the one or more remaining working areas. Doing so applies an optimization method of selecting one of the remaining working areas based on a positional relationship, when remaining working areas exist, as stated above by Ma.
Regarding Claim 19, Unnerstall teaches a method executable by a control assistance system ([0060] via “… controlled by a higher-level master computer with a database connected to it ….”) that assists control of a robot capable of changing a relative positional relationship between a workpiece and the robot that processes the workpiece, the method comprising:
acquiring a workpiece model indicating a plurality of working areas of the workpiece ([0035] via “According to a further advantageous embodiment variant, the workpiece is subdivided into processing areas before step e), in particular in the case of several detected defects.”);
acquiring a robot model indicating the robot having an end effector ([0046] via “At least one grinding tool is designed as a robot, which is connected to a computer and has a supporting device attached to an arm of the robot, …, wherein the arm is movable under computer control.”);
virtually executing, for each of a plurality of candidate positional relationships that are candidates for the relative positional relationship between the workpiece and the robot, a predetermined process in at least one of the working areas by the end effector of the robot placed in the candidate positional relationship ([0029] via “The pre-simulation of a grinding or polishing process before the grinding or polishing is carried out ensures that the respective defects can be automatically processed with the available grinding or polishing tools.”), ([0070] via “Before the grinding tools 7 of the grinding station 3 are controlled by the master computer, a simulation of possible movements of the grinding tool 7 for processing the respective defect is carried out in advance.”), ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”), by a simulation based on the workpiece model and the robot model ([0029] via “The pre-simulation of a grinding or polishing process before the grinding or polishing is carried out ensures that the respective defects can be automatically processed with the available grinding or polishing tools.”), ([0062] via “The optical scanning device 6
scans the surface of the workpiece 5, preferably by applying a light beam. The reflected radiation is detected by a detector and any defects found on the surface of the workpiece 5
are stored digitally in a second database.”);
identifying, for each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships, a set of one or more of the working areas having processed under the candidate positional relationship in the simulation, as a working area set ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”);
determining the relative positional relationship from the plurality of candidate positional relationships based on the working area set of each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”); and
controlling the robot placed in a real working space, based on the determined relative positional relationship ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”), ([0076] via “In particular, the calculation of the control of the grinding tools 7 and, in the subsequent polishing process, also of the polishing tools 8 is carried out with the aid of software in such a way that the defective area of the workpiece 5 to be processed is processed with optimized speed.”).
Unnerstall is silent on wherein control assistance system includes at least one processor.
However, Ma teaches wherein control assistance system includes at least one processor (Col. 14 lines 65-67, where “In some exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure, the robot master control system may further include at least one storage medium and at least one processor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ma wherein control assistance system includes at least one processor. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Processors are common computer components found in robotic control. While the invention of Unnerstall includes higher-level master computer, despite the lack of mention that the master computer includes a processor, the functionalities of the invention would still produce the same outcomes. Computer processors are a well-known and common type of computing element in the art of robot control, and therefore the simple substitution of a processor would have been obvious to implement.
Regarding Claim 20, Unnerstall teaches a computer ([0060] via “… controlled by a higher-level master computer with a database connected to it ….”) to function as a control assistance system that assists control of a robot capable of changing a relative positional relationship between a workpiece and the robot that processes the workpiece, the instructions causing the computer to execute:
acquiring a workpiece model indicating a plurality of working areas of the workpiece ([0035] via “According to a further advantageous embodiment variant, the workpiece is subdivided into processing areas before step e), in particular in the case of several detected defects.”);
acquiring a robot model indicating the robot having an end effector ([0046] via “At least one grinding tool is designed as a robot, which is connected to a computer and has a supporting device attached to an arm of the robot, …, wherein the arm is movable under computer control.”);
virtually executing, for each of a plurality of candidate positional relationships that are candidates for the relative positional relationship between the workpiece and the robot, a predetermined process in at least one of the working areas by the end effector of the robot placed in the candidate positional relationship ([0029] via “The pre-simulation of a grinding or polishing process before the grinding or polishing is carried out ensures that the respective defects can be automatically processed with the available grinding or polishing tools.”), ([0070] via “Before the grinding tools 7 of the grinding station 3 are controlled by the master computer, a simulation of possible movements of the grinding tool 7 for processing the respective defect is carried out in advance.”), ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”), by a simulation based on the workpiece model and the robot model ([0029] via “The pre-simulation of a grinding or polishing process before the grinding or polishing is carried out ensures that the respective defects can be automatically processed with the available grinding or polishing tools.”), ([0062] via “The optical scanning device 6
scans the surface of the workpiece 5, preferably by applying a light beam. The reflected radiation is detected by a detector and any defects found on the surface of the workpiece 5
are stored digitally in a second database.”);
identifying, for each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships, a set of one or more of the working areas having processed under the candidate positional relationship in the simulation, as a working area set ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”);
determining the relative positional relationship from the plurality of candidate positional relationships based on the working area set of each of the plurality of candidate positional relationships ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”); and
controlling the robot placed in a real working space, based on the determined relative positional relationship ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”), ([0076] via “In particular, the calculation of the control of the grinding tools 7 and, in the subsequent polishing process, also of the polishing tools 8 is carried out with the aid of software in such a way that the defective area of the workpiece 5 to be processed is processed with optimized speed.”).
Unnerstall is silent on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions for causing the computer to function as the control assistance system.
However, Ma teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions for causing the computer to function as the control assistance system (Col. 14 line 65 – Col. 15 line 9, where “In some exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure, the robot master control system may further include at least one storage medium and at least one processor. … The storage medium may include a data storage device. The data storage device may be a non-transitory storage medium or a temporary storage medium.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ma of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing processor-executable instructions for causing the computer to function as the control assistance system. The courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums are common computer components found in robotic control. While the invention of Unnerstall includes higher-level master computer with a database, despite the lack of mention that the master computer includes anon-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the functionalities of the invention would still produce the same outcomes. Non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums are a well-known and common type of computing element in the art of robot control, and therefore the simple substitution of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium would have been obvious to implement.
21. Claim(s) 13, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Fan et al. (US 20230256602 A1 hereinafter Fan).
Regarding Claim 13, Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: set the working area set corresponding to the determined relative positional relationship, as a working area group that is a group of one or more of the working areas to be processed by the robot in the relative positional relationship ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”), ([0073] via “If, as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, several robots with respective grinding tools 7 are arranged in the grinding station 3, the workpiece 5 is preferably divided into several processing areas before the processing data determined for processing the defect is transferred to the grinding tool
7.”).
Unnerstall is silent on to record a correspondence between the working area group and the relative positional relationship in a predetermined storage.
However, Fan teaches to record a correspondence between the working area group and the relative positional relationship in a predetermined storage ([0039] via “After the one or more target grasp regions are designated by the user at the steps 230-240, the target grasp regions are stored to a region database, shown at step 250.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fan wherein the circuitry is configured to: record a correspondence between the working area group and the relative positional relationship in a predetermined storage. Doing so saves the determined positional relationship to the working area group that is now known, as stated above by Fan and shown in Figure 2 of Fan.
Regarding Claim 14, modified reference Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 13, but is silent on wherein the circuitry is configured to: execute an iterative process including the executing, the identifying, the determining and the setting, until all of the plurality of working areas belongs to any of the working area groups; and record, in the storage, one or more of the correspondences between the working area groups and the relative positional relationships, wherein the one or more correspondences indicate that all of the plurality of working areas belongs to any of the working area groups.
However, Fan teaches to execute an iterative process including the executing, the identifying, the determining and the setting, until all of the plurality of working areas belongs to any of the working area groups ([0054] via “Using the signed distance field method, at each iteration (pose of the gripper with respect to the object), each sampling point on the object
424 is checked to determine which cell of the gripper signed distance field it occupies, if any. This calculation can be performed very quickly for all of the sampling points on the object
424, leading to a determination of which points on the object 424 interfere with the gripper
422, and what the amount of gripper-object penetration is. The amount of interference or penetration is determined based on the negative value of d for cells inside the gripper which contain one or more sampling point on the object 424. In this way, the signed distance field method provides interference check results which can be used in the overall optimization model of FIG. 4.”); and
record, in the storage, one or more of the correspondences between the working area groups and the relative positional relationships, wherein the one or more correspondences indicate that all of the plurality of working areas belongs to any of the working area groups ([0039] via “After the one or more target grasp regions are designated by the user at the steps 230-240, the target grasp regions are stored to a region database, shown at step 250. In the present example, the region database includes a first target grasp region 252 which includes a portion of the valve handle. … The region database also includes a second target grasp region 254 which includes the stem/collar portion (in its circumferential entirety) of the part. “).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fan wherein the circuitry is configured to: execute an iterative process including the executing, the identifying, the determining and the setting, until all of the plurality of working areas belongs to any of the working area groups; and record, in the storage, one or more of the correspondences between the working area groups and the relative positional relationships, wherein the one or more correspondences indicate that all of the plurality of working areas belongs to any of the working area groups. Doing so quickly determines all of the positional relationships to all of the working areas, such that all possible solutions and outcomes are known, as stated above by Fan in paragraph [0054].
Regarding Claim 15, modified reference Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 14, wherein the circuitry is configured to control the robot based on the one or more correspondences so as to process the workpiece in one or more real positional relationships in the real working space corresponding to one or more of the relative positional relationships ([0072] via “If the simulation shows that the defect can be processed automatically, the position data of this defect is forwarded to the master computer for further processing by grinding. In the process, the grinding tool 7 and the robot arm to which the grinding tool 7 is attached are brought into the intended position in order to grind the defect.”), ([0076] via “In particular, the calculation of the control of the grinding tools 7 and, in the subsequent polishing process, also of the polishing tools 8 is carried out with the aid of software in such a way that the defective area of the workpiece 5 to be processed is processed with optimized speed.”).
22. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Solowjow et al. (WO 2025038086 A1 hereinafter Solowjow).
Regarding Claim 16, Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the circuitry is configured to: adjust the determined relative positional relationship by an optimization process using the determined relative positional relationship as an initial value; and control the robot based on the adjusted relative positional relationship.
However, Solowjow teaches to adjust the determined relative positional relationship by an optimization process using the determined relative positional relationship as an initial value ([0029] via “Thus, as described herein, a system can include includes a grasping neural network that is trained so that it is configured to determine locations for a robot to grasp objects. The system can obtain a first object dataset. … The system can input the first training dataset into the neural network, so as to train the neural network with the first training dataset. The system can determine first key performance indicators that indicate whether the neural network improved responsive to the first training dataset. Based on the first key performance indicators, the system, in particular a Bayesian optimizer, can adjust the first plurality of parameters so as to define an updated plurality of parameters.”); and
control the robot based on the adjusted relative positional relationship ([0017] via “After the neural network 200 is trained, for example, images of objects can be sent to the neural network 200 by the robot device 104 for classification, in particular classification of grasp locations.”), ([0029] via “Based on the updated plurality of parameters, the system can generate a second training dataset that improves a performance of the neural network.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Solowjow wherein the circuitry is configured to: adjust the determined relative positional relationship by an optimization process using the determined relative positional relationship as an initial value; and control the robot based on the adjusted relative positional relationship. Doing so applies a known optimization process, in this case the Bayesian optimizer, to improve the determination of the positional relationships, as stated above by Solowjow in paragraph [0029].
23. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unnerstall et al. (US 20220222765 A1 hereinafter Unnerstall) in view of Solowjow et al. (WO 2025038086 A1 hereinafter Solowjow), and further in view of Hill et al. (US 20220096175 A1 hereinafter Hill) and Yamane et al. (US 20240180383 A1 hereinafter Yamane).
Regarding Claim 17, modified reference Unnerstall teaches the control assistance system according to claim 16, but is silent on wherein the optimization process is Bayesian optimization, and wherein the circuitry is configured to, in the Bayesian optimization: estimate a function indicating a relationship between a positional relationship and a physical quantity related to a motion of the robot, using Gaussian process regression; calculate an acquisition function based on a result of the Gaussian process regression; identify one positional relationship based on the acquisition function; and replace the determined relative positional relationship with the identified one positional relationship, as the adjustment of the determined relative positional relationship.
However, Solowjow teaches wherein the optimization process is Bayesian optimization ([0029] via “Thus, as described herein, a system can include includes a grasping neural network that is trained so that it is configured to determine locations for a robot to grasp objects. The system can obtain a first object dataset. … The system can input the first training dataset into the neural network, so as to train the neural network with the first training dataset. The system can determine first key performance indicators that indicate whether the neural network improved responsive to the first training dataset. Based on the first key performance indicators, the system, in particular a Bayesian optimizer, can adjust the first plurality of parameters so as to define an updated plurality of parameters.”).
Further, Hill teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to, in the Bayesian optimization: estimate a function indicating a relationship between a positional relationship, using Gaussian process regression ([0092] via “FIG. 6 illustrates an example method 600 for training a machine learning model to locate objects based on RFID data. At block 602, the method 600
includes positioning an object having at least one electronic identification tag at a plurality of positions relative to at least one electronic identification reader. For instance, surgical instrument 302 can have RFID tag 304a and 304b, and surgical instrument 302 can be positioned at position 306a, 306b, and/or 306c relative to RFID reader 320 at position 322.”), ([0095] via “In some embodiments, the method 600 may include training the machine learning algorithm using the position vector dataset. In some cases, the machine learning algorithm can correspond to a Gaussian Process Regression algorithm. In some examples, the positioning of the object can be performed using a robotic arm. For instance, robot 204 can position surgical instrument 210.”).
Further, Yamane teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to, in the Bayesian optimization: estimate a function indicating a physical quantity related to a motion of the robot, using Gaussian process regression ([0102] via “In one embodiment, the processor 54 of the cloud server 52 (or the processor 22 of the mobile robot 20) determines a location of the object that should be removed from the environment 40 using a model 66 that identifies the relative proportion or amount of time spent while performing the task at various positions or regions within the environment 40 (i.e., a heatmap) and/or identifies particular positions or regions within the environment 40 that the mobile robot spends a most amount of time while performing the task (i.e., hotspots). These models may include, for example, statistical models (e.g., the histogram model 200), function approximation models (e.g., the Gaussian mixture models 210, 220), or clustering models (e.g., the mean shift clustering model 230, 240, 250).”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the time spent of Yamane as the physical quantity, as the physical quantity is defined in paragraphs [0040], [0043], and [0048] of the specification of the instant application.);
calculate an acquisition function based on a result of the Gaussian process regression; identify one positional relationship based on the acquisition function; and replace the determined relative positional relationship with the identified one positional relationship, as the adjustment of the determined relative positional relationship ([0078] via “The method 100
continues with modifying an operating procedure of the mobile robot based on the database or model to improve a task performance of the mobile robot (block 140). Particularly, the processor 54 of the cloud server 52 (or the processor 22 of the mobile robot 20) extracts useful information from the mission data 64 and/or the model(s) 66, which incorporate several missions worth of mission data collected by the mobile robot 20. The extracted information may include, for example, but is not limited to, mission completion times, distribution of robot position data, objects seen during the missions, position and velocity before failures, and image data before failures.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Solowjow wherein the optimization process is Bayesian optimization. Doing so applies a known optimization process, in this case the Bayesian optimizer, to improve the determination of the positional relationships, as stated above by Solowjow.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hill wherein the circuitry is configured to, in the Bayesian optimization: estimate a function indicating a relationship between a positional relationship, using Gaussian process regression. Doing so applies a known optimization process, in this case a Gaussian process regression algorithm, to train and learn how to determine the positional relationships, as stated above by Hill in paragraph [0095].
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamane wherein the circuitry is configured to, in the Bayesian optimization: estimate a function indicating a physical quantity related to a motion of the robot, using Gaussian process regression; calculate an acquisition function based on a result of the Gaussian process regression; identify one positional relationship based on the acquisition function; and replace the determined relative positional relationship with the identified one positional relationship, as the adjustment of the determined relative positional relationship. Doing so improves the performance of the robot model by calculating the positional relationship based on the optimization model, as stated above by Yamane in paragraph [0078].
Examiner’s Note
24. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
25. Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657