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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. KR10-2022-0075791 filed on 06/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“collision detection unit configured to detect...”
“torque measurement part configured to measure...”
“difference value calculation part configured to calculate...”
“collision determination part configured to determine...” in claim 1. “reference value setting part configured to set...” in claim 2.
“measurement position storage part configured to...” in claim 3 and 4.
“acceleration time setting unit configured to set...” in claim 6.
“measurement period setting part configured to set...” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maki et al. (US 20130166064).
Regarding claim 10:
Maki teaches an operation method of a substrate transfer apparatus (see at least abstract), the operation method comprising:
moving an end-effector on which a substrate is supported by providing power through a motor (see at least ¶0052);
measuring a torque value of the motor several times with a time difference (transfer monitoring means detects torque value of motor, see at least ¶0009-0010);
calculating a torque difference value between two measured torque measurement values (differential value, see at least ¶0009-0010); and
determining collision of the end-effector based on the calculated torque difference value (see at least ¶0071, ¶0102-0106).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki et al. (US 20130166064) in view of Muneto (US 2018/0311836).
Regarding claim 1:
Maki teaches a substrate transfer apparatus comprising:
an end-effector on which a substrate is supported (see at least Fig. 5a, abstract, ¶0002);
a motor configured to provide power for movement of the end-effector (see at least ¶0052);
a collision detection unit configured to detect collision of the end-effector (transfer monitoring means, see at least ¶0009-0010, ¶0064-0071); and
a control unit configured to control driving of the motor (control means 10)
wherein the collision detection unit comprises:
a torque measurement part configured to measure a torque value of the motor (transfer monitoring means detects torque value of motor, see at least ¶0009-0010);
a difference value calculation part configured to calculate a torque difference value between two torque measurement values measured with a time difference (differential value, see at least ¶0009-0010); and
a collision determination part configured to determine the collision of the end-effector based on the torque difference value (see at least ¶0071, ¶0102-0106).
Maki does not explicitly teach controlling the driving of the motor depending on the collision detection of the collision detection unit.
However, the Examiner notes that modifying operation of a robot upon detecting a collision is conventional in the art.
For example, Muneto teaches a system and method of monitoring a robotic manipulator, including detecting a collision has occurred based on a torque differential and stopping the robot when a collision has been detected (See at least abstract, ¶0013-0014, ¶0084)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the robotic collision detection system and method as taught by Maki with the conventional technique of stopping a robot upon detecting a collision as taught by Muneto in order to prevent damage to the robot and the external environment upon detecting a collision.
Regarding claim 2:
Muneto further teaches wherein the collision detection unit further comprises a reference value setting part configured to set a collision determination reference value,
wherein the collision determination part is configured to determine that the end-effector has collided when the torque difference value is equal to or greater than the collision determination reference value, and
the control unit is configured to stop the driving of the motor or drive the motor in a reverse direction when the collision determination part determines that the end-effector has collided (see at least abstract, ¶0019-0021, ¶0084).
Regarding claim 4:
Maki further teaches wherein the collision detection unit further comprises a measurement value storage part configured to store the measured torque value of the motor,
wherein the torque measurement part is configured to measure the torque value of the motor at a predetermined period, and
the difference value calculation part is configured to calculate a torque difference value between a current period torque measurement value and a proximate period torque measurement value for each of the predetermined periods (see at least ¶0009-0010, ¶0067, ¶0097, ¶0102-0106, Fig. 3, 10, 11).
Regarding claim 5:
Maki teaches the limitations as in claim 2 above.
Maki does not explicitly teach controlling the transfer apparatus in terms of speed and acceleration.
However, in the normal operation as taught by Maki in at least Fig. 11a, the motor is controlled in a conventional manner which would produce motion as in claim 5.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the robot control system and method as taught by Maki and Muneto by implementing conventional control of the robot arm including acceleration, constant speed motion, and deceleration based on torque values, as at least suggested by Maki in order to operate the robot in a conventional manner, allowing for alternating motion, reversing, and stopping.
Regarding claims 8-9:
Maki further teaches torque measurement throughout the cycle (see at least Figs. 3, 10, 11).
Regarding claims 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18, the combination of Maki and Muneto teaches a method as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki and Muneto as applied to claim 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (US 6,429,617).
Regarding claim 3 and 10:
Maki teaches the limitations as in claim 2 above. Maki further teaches wherein the collision detection unit further comprises a measurement position storage part configured to record a measurement position of the torque value (see at least ¶0009-0010, ¶0067, ¶0097, Fig. 3, 10, 11).
Maki is silent as to stopping the driving of the motor after driving the motor to a previous measurement position.
Sano teaches a system and method controlling a robot, including detecting a collision based on torques, wherein a measurement position storage part is configured to record a measurement position of the torque value and wherein the control unit is configured to stop the driving of the motor after driving the motor to a previous measurement position (see at least abstract, column 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot collision detection system and method as taught by Maki and Muneto with the reversing process as taught by Sano in order to mitigate damage caused by a collision and retreat to a known, safe position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights