DETAILED ACTION
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.
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: unit and portion in claims 1-29.
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 Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
“an” in “an result” should be “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 22, 24-26, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eiband et al (Eiband T, Willibald C, Tannert I, Weber B, Lee D. Collaborative programming of robotic task decisions and recovery behaviors. Autonomous Robots. 2023 Feb;47(2):229-47.).
RE claim 1, Eiband teaches An information processing method executed by a control portion configured to execute a plurality of processing units related to an operation of a control objective in a set sequence (Fig 1, abstract), the method comprising:
receiving an operational input that specifies a starting position and an ending position for setting at least one processing unit as a subroutine among the plurality of processing units (Figs 1, 3-5, abstract, page 32 col 2, page 234 col 2- page 235 col 2 wherein user inputs stand and end positions for each task/state defined by the sub-routine, providing manual user feedback, e.g. via a button or GUI); and
setting the subroutine based on the starting position and the ending position(Figs 1, 3-5, abstract, page 234 col 2- page 235 col 2 wherein the robot is set to execute the task/action).
RE claim 2, Eiband teaches further comprising: executing the subroutine (Figs 1, 3-5, 8-9, abstract, page 234 col 2- page 235 col 2 wherein the robot executes the task/action).
RE claim 3, Eiband teaches further comprising: generating a display image that displays the plurality of processing units and displaying on a display apparatus wherein the control portion is configured to receive, in the display image, a first operational input that specifies the starting position, and a second operational input that specifies the ending position (Figs 1, 3-5, 8-9, abstract, page 232 col 2, page 240 col 2 etc).
RE claim 4, Eiband teaches wherein, in the display image, the control portion generates a flowchart display section that displays a flowchart in which the plurality of processing units are arranged in the set sequence (Figs 1, 3-5, 8-9, abstract, page 232 col 2, page 240 col 2 etc).
RE claim 7, Eiband teaches wherein, in the flowchart display section, the control portion generates a receiving setting section that is arranged in parallel with the flowchart and, in a case of having received the first operational input, displays an image that indicates a position specified by the first operational input (Figs 1, 3-5, 8-9, abstract, page 232 col 2, page 240 col 2 etc).
RE claim 8, Eiband teaches wherein, in the flowchart display section, the control portion generates a receiving setting section that is arranged in parallel with the flowchart and, in a case of having received the second operational input, displays an image that indicates a position specified by the second operational input (Figs 1, 3-5, 8-9, abstract, page 232 col 2, page 240 col 2 etc).
RE claim 22, Eiband teaches further comprising: generating a display image that displays the plurality of processing unit and displaying the display image on a display apparatus, wherein the control portion displays, in the display image, an execution result that is obtained by executing the subroutine (Figs 1, 4-6, 8-12 page 235 col 2, page 237).
Claim 24 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Eiband teaches An information processing apparatus comprising: a control portion configured to execute a plurality of processing units (abstract, Fig 1).
RE claim 25, Eiband teaches A control system comprising: the information processing apparatus according to claim 24; and a control objective whose operation is controlled according to processing described in each of the plurality of processing units (abstract, Fig 1).
RE claim 26, Eiband teaches wherein the control objective includes a robot apparatus (abstract, Fig 1).
RE claim 28, Eiband teaches A manufacturing method of an article comprising: manufacturing the article using the control system according to claim 25 (abstract, Fig 1, page 229 col 1).
RE claim 29, Eiband teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions configured to allow a computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 1 (abstract, Fig 1).
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.
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.
Claims 5-6, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiband et al, and further in view of Subramanian et al (US 20240272935 A1).
RE claim 5, Eiband is silent RE wherein, in the flowchart display section, the control portion generates an image in which the subroutine is identifiable.
However Subramanian teaches in Fig 2A, [0077], [0097] etc.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Eiband a system and method of wherein, in the flowchart display section, the control portion generates an image in which the subroutine is identifiable as suggested by Subramanian, to visually identify the selection, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 6, Eiband as modified by Subramanian teaches wherein, in the flowchart display section, in a case of having received the first operational input and the second operational input, the control portion changes a display color of an image corresponding to a plurality of processing units within a range from the starting position to the ending position (Subramanian Fig 2A, [0045]-[0046] [0077], [0097]).
RE claim 9, Eiband is silent RE wherein, in the display image, the control portion generates a list display section that displays at least two processing units as a list.
However Subramanian teaches in Figs 2A, 5E, 5H, [0045], [0060], [0078] etc to display and allow manipulate the workflow/element from the list.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Eiband a system and method of wherein, in the display image, the control portion generates a list display section that displays at least two processing units as a list as suggested by Subramanian, to display and allow manipulate the workflow/element from the list, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 10-11 recite limitations similar in scope with 5-6 and rejected under the same rationale.
RE claim 12, Eiband as modified by Subramanian teaches wherein, in the list display section, in a case of having received the second operational input, the control portion displays an image that indicates receipt of the second operational input (Subramanian Figs 2A, 5E, [0077]- [0078], [0097]).
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiband et al, and further in view of Shibata (US 20050028036 A1).
RE claim 13, Eiband is silent RE wherein the control portion repeatedly executes the subroutine until a set count is reached.
However Shibata teaches in [0028], [0122] etc to control the number of execution.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Eiband a system and method of wherein the control portion repeatedly executes the subroutine until a set count is reached as suggested by Shibata, to control the number of execution, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 14, Eiband as modified by Shibata teaches further comprising: generating a display image that displays at least two processing units and displaying the display image on a display apparatus (Eiband Figs 1, 3-5, 8-9, abstract, page 232 col 2, page 240 col 2 etc,) wherein, in the display image, the control portion generates a set count display section that displays the set count, and receives an operational input for setting the set count (Shibata Fig 7, [0028], [0122], [0123]).
RE claim 15, Eiband as modified by Shibata teaches wherein, in a case where the subroutine includes a processing unit in which a conditional branch to proceed to a next sequence in accordance with a determination result is described, the control portion counts at least one determination count, and repeatedly executes the subroutine until the determination count reaches an upper limit count (Eiband Figs 1, 3-5, 8-9, abstract, page 232 col 2, page 240 col 2 etc, and Shibata Figs 7-8, [0028], [0122], [0123]).
RE claim 16, Eiband as modified by Shibata teaches wherein, in the display image, the control portion generates an upper limit count display section that displays the upper limit count, and receives an operational input for setting the upper limit count (Shibata Figs 7, 11, [0028], [0122], [0123]).
RE claim 17, Eiband as modified by Shibata teaches further comprising: displaying, in a case of having repeatedly executed the subroutine, a count of error occurrences in each processing unit in the subroutine in a position that corresponds to each processing unit in the display image, by determining errors in each processing unit and counting the count of error occurrences (Shibata Figs 7, 11, [0028], [0122], [0123]).
RE claim 18, Eiband as modified by Shibata teaches wherein, in the display image, the control portion generates a start instruction display section that instructs an execution start of the subroutine, and receives an operational input that instructs the execution start (Eiband Figs 1, 3-5, 8-9, abstract, page 232 col 2, page 240 col 2 etc,).
RE claim 19, Eiband as modified by Shibata teaches wherein, in the display image, the control portion generates a pause display section that instructs to pause execution of the subroutine each time the processing unit of the subroutine is executed, and receives an operational input that instructs to pause the execution of the subroutine each time the processing unit is executed (Shibata Fig 8, abstract, [0010]).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiband et al, and further in view of Lamant et al (US 8726209 B).
RE claim 20, Eiband is silent RE wherein, in a case of executing the subroutine using a parameter, the control portion executes the subroutine using information on an result of executing a processing unit not included in the subroutine prior to executing the subroutine as the parameter.
However Lamant teaches in abstract, Figs 1B-C, col 6 lines 43-53 etc to test and evaluate the function with debuggable parameters.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Eiband a system and method of wherein, in a case of executing the subroutine using a parameter, the control portion executes the subroutine using information on an result of executing a processing unit not included in the subroutine prior to executing the subroutine as the parameter, as suggested by Lamant, o test and evaluate the function with debuggable parameters, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 21, Eiband is silent RE wherein, in a case of executing the subroutine using a parameter, the control portion executes the subroutine using information stored in a storage unit as the parameter.
However Lamant teaches in abstract, Figs 1B-C, col 6 lines 43-53 etc to test and evaluate the function with debuggable parameters.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Eiband a system and method of wherein, in a case of executing the subroutine using a parameter, the control portion executes the subroutine using information stored in a storage unit as the parameter, as suggested by Lamant, o test and evaluate the function with debuggable parameters, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eiband et al, and further in view of Mukherjee et al (US 20220413814 A1).
RE claim 23, Eiband is silent RE wherein, in a case where the subroutine includes a processing unit in which processing to execute an image analysis is described, when displaying the execution result, the control portion displays the execution result of the image analysis.
However Mukherjee teaches in [0160] to deploy the image analyzer application by the code generation system.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Eiband a system and method of wherein, in a case where the subroutine includes a processing unit in which processing to execute an image analysis is described, when displaying the execution result, the control portion displays the execution result of the image analysis, as suggested by Mukherjee, to deploy the image analyzer application by the code generation system, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 27, Eiband is silent RE wherein the control objective includes an image capturing apparatus. However Mukherjee teaches in [0136], [0160] wherein a workflow is deployed on a small drone, an obvious variation of the manufacturing robots..
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Eiband a system and method wherein the control objective includes an image capturing apparatus, as suggested by Mukherjee, to deploy the image capture/analyzer application by the code generation system, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See attached 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights