DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Pending
1-20
35 U.S.C. 103
1-20
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), regarding Application No. JP 2023-201032, filed on 11/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 01/23/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note - Prior Art
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the 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-01.2024] 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 & Assoc., 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. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over embodiments of Dan et al. (US 2018/0297198 A1, “Dan”).
Regarding claim 1: Dan teaches: A robot system comprising: ([0027])
a robot having an arm configured to change a position of an extremity of the arm; ([0028])
factor storage that stores factor information representing an error factor of a motion of the robot, ([0171], [0047], [0049], [0052]-[0054], [0105])
wherein the error factor is a mechanical characteristic of the robot that causes a positional error of the extremity; and ([0054]-[0055])
control circuitry configured to ([0029], [0041]) control, based on a taught position and the factor information, the robot to move the extremity toward the taught position with a positional adjustment of the robot to reduce the positional error ([0046], [0048], [0055], [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the embodiments of Dan with a reasonable expectation of success. The combination of embodiments of Dan is described in [0172] where the “scope of the following claims is to be accorded the broadest interpretation so as to encompass all such modifications and equivalent structures and functions.”
Dan explicitly describes Embodiment 2 in [0097] as the “configuration and control other than those of the robot system and the subsidiary imaging are the same as the configuration and control of Embodiment 1. Consequently, components in FIGS. 10A to 10C common to those of Embodiment 1 are assigned signs common to those of FIG. 1, and redundant description is omitted.” Dan explicitly describes Embodiment 3 in [0134] as the “configuration and control other than those of the robot system and the subsidiary imaging are the same as the configuration and control of Embodiment 1. Consequently, components in FIGS. 12A to 12C common to those of Embodiment 1 are assigned signs common to those of FIG. 1, and redundant description is omitted.”
The motivations for combination are described in Dan [0133] and [0162]. Advantageous effects of Embodiment 2 include “the error of the on-line teaching point due to the deviation in the directions of the off-line offset and the on-line offset can be removed.” See [0133]. Advantageous effects of Embodiment 3 include “the error of the on-line teaching point can be removed even if the deviation between the off-line offset and the on-line offset nonlinearly occurs.” See [0162]. Thus, Dan discloses that the multiple embodiments are extensions of the first embodiment and are therefore combinable.
Regarding claim 2: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: ([0029], [0041])
sequentially generate positional commands representing intermediate positions of the robot to the taught position based on the taught position and the factor information so that the extremity moves toward the taught position with the positional adjustment; and ([0053]-[0055], [0070], [0083])
control the robot according to the positional commands that are sequentially generated ([0085], [0091]).
Regarding claim 3: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 2, wherein the error factor includes compliance of the arm, and ([0054], [0105])
wherein the control circuitry ([0029], [0041]) is configured to repeat operations including: ([0070], [0119])
generating a provisional positional command based on the taught position; ([0053]-[0055])
calculating, as the positional error, a deflection of the arm based on the provisional positional command and the compliance; ([0054], [0105])
generating the positional command based on the deflection and the provisional positional command; and ([0052]-[0055], [0105]).
control the robot according to the positional command ([0085], [0048], [0055], [0105]).
Regarding claim 4: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 3, wherein the error factor further includes a dimensional error of the arm, and ([0054], [0105])
wherein the control circuitry is configured to generate the positional command based on the provisional positional command, the dimensional error, and the deflection in the operation ([0052]-[0055], [0105]).
Regarding claim 5: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 2, further comprising simulation circuitry configured to: ([0052])
convert a motion history of the robot by removing, based on the factor information, a history of the positional adjustment from the motion history; and ([0052]-[0055], [0066]-[0070])
simulate the motion of the robot in a virtual space based on a model of the robot that does not include the error factor and the converted motion history ([0052]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 6: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 5, wherein the simulation circuitry is further configured to: ([0052])
acquire the factor information from a factor storage of the control circuitry and store the factor information in a second factor storage; and convert the motion history based on the factor information stored in the second factor storage ([0069], [0118], [0147]).
Regarding claim 7: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 3, further comprising simulation circuitry configured to: ([0052])
store a motion history of the robot in association with one or both of the positional command and the provisional positional command; ([0069], [0118], [0147])
convert the motion history of the robot by removing, based on the factor information, a history of the positional adjustment from the motion history; and ([0052]-[0055])
simulate the motion of the robot in a virtual space based on a model of the robot that does not include the error factor and the converted motion history ([0052]-[0055], [0072]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 8: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: ([0029], [0041])
generate a manually taught position based on manual operation by a user; ([0052], [0053])
calculate, based on the manually taught position and the factor information, a second positional error of the extremity that would occur during an expected motion toward the manually taught position; ([0054]-[0055], [0105])
control, based on the manually taught position and the second positional error, the robot to move the extremity toward the manually taught position with the positional adjustment to reduce the second positional error; ([0085])
store the manually taught position as the taught position in a taught position storage in response to a registration request by the user; ([0069], [0118], [0147], [0046])
calculate the positional error based on the stored taught position and the factor information; and ([0110]-[0119])
control, based on the stored taught position and the positional error, the robot to move the extremity toward the stored taught position with the positional adjustment ([0110]-[0119]).
Regarding claim 9: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 8, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: ([0029], [0041])
switch, in response to a switch request by the user, whether an error reduction is enabled; ([0059], [0068]-[0069])
control, based on the manually taught position and the second positional error, the robot to move the extremity toward the manually taught position with the positional adjustment in response to determining that the error reduction is enabled; ([0069], [0110]-[0119])
control, based on the manually taught position, the robot to move the extremity toward the manually taught position without the positional adjustment in response to determining that the error reduction is disabled; ([0068]-[0069], [0147], [0110]-[0119])
store setting information indicating whether the error reduction is enabled in the taught position storage in association with the manually taught position; ([0069], [0147], [0110]-[0119])
control, based on the stored taught position and the positional error, the robot to move the extremity toward the stored taught position with the positional adjustment in response to determining that the setting information corresponding to the stored taught position indicates that the error reduction is enabled; and ([0069], [0147], [0110]-[0119])
control, based on the stored taught position, the robot to move the extremity toward the stored taught position without the positional adjustment in response to determining that the setting information corresponding to the stored taught position indicates that the error reduction is disabled ([0068]-[0069], [0147], [0110]-[0119]).
Regarding claim 10: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: ([0029], [0041])
store, in a taught position storage, the taught position in association with setting information indicating whether an error reduction is enabled; ([0069], [0118], [0147])
control, based on the taught position and the positional error, the robot to move the extremity toward the stored taught position with the positional adjustment in response to determining that the setting information corresponding to the stored taught position indicates that the error reduction is enabled; and ([0066]-[0070])
control, based on the stored taught position, the robot to move the extremity toward the stored taught position without the positional adjustment in response to determining that the setting information corresponding to the taught position indicates that the error reduction is disabled ([0066]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 11: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 10, wherein the control circuitry is configured to ([0029], [0041])
control, based on the stored taught position, the robot to move the extremity toward the stored taught position without the positional adjustment in response to determining that the setting information is not associated with the stored taught position ([0069], [0085], [0118], [0147]).
Regarding claim 12: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to ([0029], [0041])
acquire positional information of a surrounding object of the robot based on a relative position of the extremity with respect to the surrounding object and the taught position that causes the extremity to reach the relative position ([0002]).
Regarding claim 13: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 12, further comprising simulation circuitry configured to: ([0052])
correct a position of a model of the surrounding object in a virtual space based on acquired positional information of the surrounding object; and operate the robot in the virtual space ([0052]-[0053], [0066]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 14: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 13, wherein the simulation circuitry is further configured to generate the taught position based on the motion of the robot in the virtual space ([0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 17: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 1, wherein the factor information is stored in the robot, and ([0069], [0118], [0147])
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to ([0029], [0041]) acquire the factor information from the robot and store the factor information ([0069], [0118], [0147]).
Regarding claim 18: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 17, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to ([0029], [0041]) collate the factor information stored in the robot with the factor information stored in the factor storage ([0069], [0118], [0147]).
Regarding claim 19: Dan teaches: A method for manufacturing a robot system comprising ([0001],
a robot having an arm configured to change a position of an extremity of the arm and ([0028])
a control circuitry configured to control the robot, ([0029], [0041])
the method comprising: ([0001])
operating, by the control circuitry, the robot according to a predetermined motion pattern by the control circuitry; ([0046], [0048], [0052]-[0055]).
generating factor information representing an error factor based on the motion pattern and an actual motion of the robot according to the motion pattern, ([0171], [0047], [0049], [0052]-[0054], [0105])
wherein the error factor is mechanical characteristic of the robot that causes a positional error of the extremity; and ([0054]-[0055])
storing the factor information in the robot system ([0069], [0118], [0147]).
Regarding claim 20: Dan further teaches: The method according to claim 19, wherein storing the factor information in the robot system comprises storing the factor information in the robot ([0069], [0118], [0147]).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dan et al. (US 2018/0297198 A1, “Dan”) and further in view of Hashiguchi et al. (US 2015/0045949 A1, “Hashiguchi”).
Regarding claim 15: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 1, [. . .] wherein the control circuitry is configured to: ([0029], [0041])
[. . .] control the robot based on the selected factor information ([0046], [0048], [0055], [0085], [0091], [0105]).
However, Dan does not explicitly teach: wherein the factor information is stored for each of a plurality of robots including the robot, and select the factor information corresponding to the robot to be controlled.
Hashiguchi teaches: wherein the factor information is stored for each of a plurality of robots including the robot, and select the factor information corresponding to the robot to be controlled ([0045], [0057], [0083], [0086], [0090], [0114]).
Dan and Hashiguchi are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robot motion control and error reduction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Dan with the aspects of Hashiguchi to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a robot system wherein the factor information is stored for each of a plurality of robots including the robot, and select the factor information corresponding to the robot to be controlled. The motivation for modification would have been to use error likelihood in calibration of multiple robots to enhance work efficiency in preparing the work coordinate system (Hashiguchi, [0114]), which increases robot arm accuracy and system effectiveness.
Regarding claim 16: Dan further teaches: The robot system according to claim 1.
However, Dan does not explicitly teach: wherein the factor information is stored in the factor storage in association with an ID of the robot; acquire an ID from the robot to be controlled; and control the robot based on the factor information in response to the acquired ID matches the ID associated with the factor information in the factor storage.
Hashiguchi teaches: wherein the factor information is stored in the factor storage in association with an ID of the robot; ([0057], [0086])
acquire an ID from the robot to be controlled; and control the robot based on the factor information in response to the acquired ID matches the ID associated with the factor information in the factor storage ([0046], [0048], [0055],[ 0057], [0085]-[0086], [0091], [0105]).
Dan and Hashiguchi are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robot motion control and error reduction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Dan with the aspects of Hashiguchi to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a robot system wherein the factor information is stored in the factor storage in association with an ID of the robot; acquire an ID from the robot to be controlled; and control the robot based on the factor information in response to the acquired ID matches the ID associated with the factor information in the factor storage. The motivation for modification would have been to use error likelihood and robot identification in calibration to enhance work efficiency in preparing the work coordinate system (Hashiguchi, [0114]), which increases robot arm accuracy and system effectiveness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berman et al. US 20070174653 A1: An automated laboratory device that comprises a mechanism that performs operations on laboratory samples, a scheduler that causes the mechanism to process laboratory samples in accordance with programmed processes, logic that detects an error occurring in a process controlled by the scheduler, logic that accepts a user-defined error handling routine for the error, and logic that executes the error handling routine when the error is encountered. Also described is an embodiment of the invention directed to a laboratory automation system, a method of laboratory automation, a computer implemented software program product, a method of doing business, and a laboratory automation network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON B EMMETT whose telephone number is (303)297-4231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00 ET.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/MADISON B EMMETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights