DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 12/18/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending and examined below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, which recites “an industrial robot” is not clear since claim 1 also mentioned an industrial robot. It is not clear both industrial robots are same or different.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2018/0128616 (“Geiger”).
Regarding claim 1, Geiger discloses a method for controlling an (see at least [0006], where “method for generating control signals for voice control of the robot”; see also [0007]), comprising:
determining a motion mode for the industrial robot based on a first voice input (see at least [0007], where “The voice control routine is configured for detecting and evaluating voice command combinations consisting of at least a first and a second voice command, wherein direction or speed information is assigned to the first voice command and amount information is assigned to the second voice command in a reference coordinate system.”; see also [0040]);
determining one or more motion parameters in the determined motion mode based on a second voice input (see at least [0007] and [0040]); and
controlling the industrial robot to move in the determined motion mode according to the one or more motion parameters (see at least [0041]).
Geiger discloses a method of controlling surgical robot. Geiger does not explicitly disclose controlling industrial robot. Control method disclosed by Geiger is not limited to surgical robot only. The control method of Geiger can be used for robot control. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Geiger with also having an industrial robot controlled with action commands generated by voice input because the end result would be to program a robot or multiple robots to perform a task in real time.
Regarding claim 8, Geiger further discloses a method comprises: receiving a real-time position from a sensor of the industrial robot (see at least [0019] and [0045]); and
controlling the industrial robot to move according to a real-time position data (see at least [0052]).
Regarding claim 10, Geiger further discloses a method comprising: receiving a first recognized result of the first voice input and a second recognized result of the second voice input from an Industrial Personal Computer, wherein determining the motion mode comprises determining the motion mode based on the first recognized result, and wherein determining the one or more motion parameters comprises determining the one or more motion parameters based on the second recognized result (see at least [0025] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Geiger further discloses a method comprises: converting the one or more motion parameters into a control signal (see at least [0041]); and
control the industrial robot to move according to the control signal (see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Geiger further discloses an industrial robot, comprising: a processor; and
a non-transitory computer readable memory coupled to the processor and
comprising instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale and [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Geiger further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale and [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Geiger further discloses a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, the non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (Refer at least to claim 1 for reasoning and rationale and [0041]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0128616 (“Geiger”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2025/0127362 (“Ding”), and further in view of US 10,783,931 (“Mercer-Taylor”).
Regarding claim 2, Geiger does not disclose claim 2. However, Ding discloses a method comprises: determining a mode identifier based on voice recognition to the first voice input (see at least fig 12, block 201-202); and
determining the motion mode based on the mode identifier and a Dynamic Link Library (DLL) encapsulated in the industrial robot, the DLL storing a plurality of predetermined modes (see at least fig 12, block 203-295).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Geiger to incorporate the teachings of Ding by including the above feature for providing faster execution of tasks by robot by matching the command with the predetermined modes.
Geiger in view of Ding does not disclose the following limitation:
DLL storing a plurality of predetermined parameter ranges for controlling a movement of the industrial robot.
However, Mercer-Taylor discloses a method wherein DLL storing a plurality of predetermined parameter ranges for controlling a movement of the industrial robot (see at least fig 4, col 14, lines 12-29 and col 15, lines 7-25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Geiger in view of Ding to incorporate the teachings of Mercer-Taylor by including the above feature for avoiding any collision and damage of robot by controlling the robot based on the predetermined ranges.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0128616 (“Geiger”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2025/0127362 (“Ding”), and in view of US 10,783,931 (“Mercer-Taylor”), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 11,351,680 (“Rosenberg”).
Regarding claim 3, Ding further discloses a method comprises: obtaining a predetermined parameter range corresponding to the determined motion mode from the DLL (see at least fig 12).
Geiger in view of Ding does not disclose the following limitation:
determining a validity of the one or more motion parameters based on the predetermined parameter range; and
in response to determining that the one or more motion parameters are valid, controlling the industrial robot to move according to the one or more motion parameters.
However, Rosenberg discloses a method wherein determining a validity of the one or more motion parameters based on the predetermined parameter range (see at least col 38, lines 44-47, where “the robot may learn a range of different movements for different tasks and can begin to adapt movements selected from this library to meet any special requirements.”; see also col 86, lines 46-52, where “Slow-moving and graceful motions validate the range and smoothness of motion of the robot and confirm appropriate balance and distribution of weight of the robot. Strength and stiffness are further validated by movements”); and
in response to determining that the one or more motion parameters are valid, controlling the industrial robot to move according to the one or more motion parameters (see at least col 54, lines 15-40).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Geiger in view of Ding and Mercer-Taylor to incorporate the teachings of Rosenberg by including the above feature for increasing efficiency by controlling the robot after validation of motion parameters.
Regarding claim 4, Rosenberg further discloses a method comprises: determining whether each of the one or more motion parameters is within the predetermined parameter range (see at least col 24, line 63-col 25, line 18); and
in response to determining that each of the one or more motion parameters is within the predetermined parameter range, determining that the one or more motion parameters are valid (see at least col 38, lines 35-47).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0128616 (“Geiger”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2025/0127362 (“Ding”).
Regarding claim 9, Geiger does not disclose claim 9. However, Ding further discloses a method wherein the motion mode and the one or more motion parameters are represented in a text format (see at least [0249]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Geiger to incorporate the teachings of Ding by including the above feature for avoiding down time by providing alternative command format.
Regarding claim 11, Geiger does not disclose claim 11. However, Ding further discloses a method wherein the first recognized result and the second recognized result are obtained through noise reduction (see at least [0066] and [0074]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Geiger to incorporate the teachings of Ding by including the above feature for reducing confusion and increasing efficiency by noise reduction of obtained signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 is/are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights