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 .
Date Filed: 03-11-25
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03-11-25 and 03-16-26 was filed after the mailing date of the 03-11-25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US Publication) US 20210114229 A1 in view of Tojo (US Publication) US 20180256271 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a remote work support system that supports work using in which a worker operates an operation robot and, the system comprising: a sound collector (Fig 2 [60], acceleration sensor, picks up sound info via vibration, see para 11) that collects sounds generated during the work performed by the work robot (Sound information, or perceptual info, is acquired by the acceleration sensor [para 11, 12], which the speaker outputs as a signal. Note: a conventional microphone is not present to pick-up aerial vibration in the factory, the acceleration sensor still obtains sound information [para 14]); a sound generator (Fig 8 [88], speaker, para 45) that generates sounds to allow the worker who operates the operation robot to listen to the sounds (In Fig 8, the speaker [88] is part of the user interface [80], specifically attached to the bottom surface of the base [81], see para 45); that extracts a sound having a specific frequency range from the sounds collected by the sound collector and causes the sound generator to output the extracted sound (In Fig 2, the processor [70b] filters the acceleration signal tp pass a particular frequency band, see para 50. The Speaker [88] output as acceleration signal, see para 13), wherein the control device is capable of determining the specific frequency range.
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach a remote operation robot, a work robot operates in a cooperative manner in response to an operation of the operation robot to perform work and a control device
Tojo discloses a remote operation robot (Fig 1 [2], master arm, para 31), a work robot (Fig 1 [1], slave arm, para 31) operates in a cooperative manner in response to an operation of the operation robot to perform work (In Fig 1, a user interface [80] remotely manipulates the robot [20], see para 32) and a control device (Fig 1 [3], control device, para 31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a remote operation robot, a work robot operates in a cooperative manner in response to an operation of the operation robot to perform work and a control device as taught by Tojo in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to give a force to the operating part in order to make an operator perceive a force based on the virtual reaction-force information outputted the module. In para 6, in Tojo.
Regarding claim 8, Hashimoto teaches wherein the sound generator (Fig 8 [88], speaker, para 45) receives sound data output from and generates sounds, and is disposed at a position where the sounds that is generated is audible to the worker operating the operation robot (In Fig 8, the speaker [88] is part of the user interface [80], specifically attached to the bottom surface of the base [81], see para 45).
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the control device
Tojo discloses the control device (Fig 1 [3], control device, para 31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the control device as taught by Tojo in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to give a force to the operating part in order to make an operator perceive a force based on the virtual reaction-force information outputted the module. In para 6, in Tojo.
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US Publication) US 20210114229 A1 in view of Tojo (US Publication) US 20180256271 A1, in further view of Hermann (US Publication) US 20130163388 A1, in further view of Eagan (US Publication) US 5435185 A.
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto teaches wherein performs a spectral analysis of the sounds collected by the sound collector (Fig 2 [60], acceleration sensor, see para 11), extracts a plurality of candidate frequency ranges, which are frequency ranges of characteristic sounds,
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the control device
Tojo discloses the control device (Fig 1 [3], control device, para 31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the control device as taught by Tojo in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to give a force to the operating part in order to make an operator perceive a force based on the virtual reaction-force information outputted the module. In para 6, in Tojo.
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach based on results of the spectral analysis,
Hermann discloses based on results of the spectral analysis (In Fig 1, the acoustic signal is captured by the microphone [110], where after a series of steps, its converted to digital form by the analog-digital converter [124], then conveyed to the DSP [118, processor] for spectral analysis via a bank of digital bandpass filter frequencies, see para 18),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of based on results of the spectral analysis as taught by Hermann in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to improves the false command rejection rate by characterizing and including the harmonic frequencies of the acoustic signal. In para 17, in Hermann.
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach outputs respective sounds having the plurality of candidate frequency ranges, causes the worker who has listened to the output sounds to select at least one candidate frequency range from the plurality of candidate frequency ranges, and determines the candidate frequency range, which is selected by the worker, as the specific frequency range.
Eagan discloses outputs respective sounds having the plurality of candidate frequency ranges, causes the worker who has listened to the output sounds to select at least one candidate frequency range from the plurality of candidate frequency ranges, and determines the candidate frequency range, which is selected by the worker, as the specific frequency range (The mechanic, or worker, uses the controller [26] for selecting the sound volume level transmitted by the sound diagnostic instrument [10] to the headset which is worn, see Col 5 L33-37. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the rotary switch can be used as range selector and allows the operator to select one of seven sound level ranges, see Col 3 L28-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of outputs respective sounds having the plurality of candidate frequency ranges, causes the worker who has listened to the output sounds to select at least one candidate frequency range from the plurality of candidate frequency ranges, and determines the candidate frequency range, which is selected by the worker, as the specific frequency range as taught by Eagan in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to improved acoustic vibratory signal and sound diagnostic instrument is provided for professional automotive maintenance personnel. In Col 3 L45-48, in Eagan.
Claim 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US Publication) US 20210114229 A1 in view of Tojo (US Publication) US 20180256271 A1, in further view of Hermann (US Publication) US 20130163388 A1, in further view of Eagan (US Publication) US 5435185 A, in further view of Tamatsukuri (US Publication) US 20190339119 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the control device includes acquired from the sound collector, and causes the sound generator to output the processed sounds in real time.
Hermann discloses wherein the control device (Fig 1 [118], digital signal processor (DSP), para 18) includes acquired from the sound collector (Fig 1 [110], microphone, para 15), and causes the sound generator to output the processed sounds in real time (the DSP continuously and in real time processes the stream of digital samples, para 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein the control device includes acquired from the sound collector, and causes the sound generator to output the processed sounds in real time as taught by Hermann in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to improves the false command rejection rate by characterizing and including the harmonic frequencies of the acoustic signal. In para 17, in Hermann.
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach a sound editor that processes the sounds
Tamatsukuri discloses a sound editor (Fig 5 [31], signal analysis unit, para 46) that processes the sounds (the electrical signals are amplified by the amplification unit (Fig 5 [29]), then converted to digital signals through the analysis unit [31]; where in Step 102 (Fig 6), noise components are eliminated from the signal, see para 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of a sound editor that processes the sounds as taught by Tamatsukuri in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to analyze a waveform of a detected signal by detecting a physical phenomenon which is generated during operation of the machinery. In para 7, in Tamatsukuri.
Regarding claim 4, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the sound editor performs filtering for emphasizing the sound having the specific frequency range and attenuating sounds having other frequency ranges.
Tamatsukuri discloses wherein the sound editor (Fig 5 [31], signal analysis unit, para 46) performs filtering for emphasizing the sound having the specific frequency range and attenuating sounds having other frequency ranges (In Fig 6, the noise components of the signals that were converted by the signal analysis unit (Fig 5 [31]) at Step 2 (Fig 6) are eliminated, see para 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein the sound editor performs filtering for emphasizing the sound having the specific frequency range and attenuating sounds having other frequency ranges as taught by Tamatsukuri in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to analyze a waveform of a detected signal by detecting a physical phenomenon which is generated during operation of the machinery. In para 7, in Tamatsukuri.
Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the sound editor emphasizes a useful sound and suppresses other sounds to improve accuracy or efficiency of the work.
Tamatsukuri discloses wherein the sound editor (Fig 5 [31], signal analysis unit, para 46) emphasizes a useful sound and suppresses other sounds to improve accuracy or efficiency of the work (As stated in claim 4, at Step 102 [Fig 6], the noise components are eliminated from the digital signal, para 46. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this method would improve the accuracy of the work by focusing on specific signals. Note: This improvement is emphasized in further view in Eagan, wherein, improve the sound detection & diagnostic tool to detect with greater sensitivity and accuracy, see Col 2 L57-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein the sound editor emphasizes a useful sound and suppresses other sounds to improve accuracy or efficiency of the work as taught by Tamatsukuri in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to analyze a waveform of a detected signal by detecting a physical phenomenon which is generated during operation of the machinery. In para 7, in Tamatsukuri.
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US Publication) US 20210114229 A1 in view of Tojo (US Publication) US 20180256271 A1, in further view of Hermann (US Publication) US 20130163388 A1, in further view of Eagan (US Publication) US 5435185 A, in further view of Tamatsukuri (US Publication) US 20190339119 A1, in further view of Chattopadhyay (US Publication) US 20190099886 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the sound editor are designed
Tamatsukuri discloses of the sound editor are designed (Fig 5 [31], signal analysis unit, para 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the sound editor are designed as taught by Tamatsukuri in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to analyze a waveform of a detected signal by detecting a physical phenomenon which is generated during operation of the machinery. In para 7, in Tamatsukuri.
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach wherein filtering characteristics based on a frequency range of the useful sound.
Chattopadhyay discloses wherein filtering characteristics based on a frequency range of the useful sound (In Fig 2, the health monitor compares features extracted [using the feature extractor (204), which can pull multiple thresholds for comparison, para 39) from the vibration signal to a threshold to detect any outliers [anomalies] that exist based on the vibration signal from the robot, see para 19. The outlier detector [206] compares features based on current state via the current measurement (time widows/data sets) and previous time windows, see para 46. In Fig 7, at Step 708, the outlier detector [206] compares previous values/measures of the same feature occurring over a time window, see para 63. At Step 710, the detector [206], will decide whether the outliner is within or outside the threshold, where depending on the calculations; at Step 712, determines if the robot is operable, see para 63-64. Note: the processor [202] is responsible for filtering the vibration signals, see 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the sound editor are designed as taught by Chattopadhyay in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to monitoring and detecting potentially defective robots in a manufacturing facility. In para 16, in Chattopadhyay.
Regarding claim 7, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the control device.
Tojo discloses the control device (Fig 1 [3], control device, para 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of the control device as taught by Tojo in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to give a force to the operating part in order to make an operator perceive a force based on the virtual reaction-force information outputted the module. In para 6, in Tojo.
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach wherein evaluates whether or not the filtering characteristics are appropriate
Eagan discloses wherein evaluates whether or not the filtering characteristics are appropriate (the instrument has a “on-off” switch activation of the acoustic vibratory pickup devices, which permits vibratory sound diagnosis of a single abnormal vibration. Also, the instrument can handle one or multiple vibratory sound patterns received and abnormal vibrations found by subsequent selective termination using the “on-off” switches, see Col 7 L54-66. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the operator can make adjustments based on monitoring both audio and visual observation via meter indications of sound levels with selected ranges, see Col 3 L59-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein evaluates whether or not the filtering characteristics are appropriate as taught by Eagan in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to improved acoustic vibratory signal and sound diagnostic instrument is provided for professional automotive maintenance personnel. In Col 3 L45-48, in Eagan.
Claim 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US Publication) US 20210114229 A1 in view of Tojo (US Publication) US 20180256271 A1, in further view of Nakamura (JP Publication) JP 2017217738 A.
Regarding claim 9, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the work performed by the work robot is work that is performed in a state where a machine tool is in contact with a workpiece, the remote work support system further comprises a force sensor that measures a temporal change in a force with which the machine tool is in contact with the workpiece, and the control device
Tojo discloses wherein the work performed by the work robot (Fig 1 [1], slave arm, para 31) is work that is performed in a state where a machine tool is in contact with a workpiece (In Fig 2, the slave arm [1] is in contact with the fitting component [200], para 38), the remote work support system (In Fig 3 & 5, the configuration of the control device [3] with the master arm [2], para 39 and slave arm [1], para 58, respectively) further comprises a force sensor (Fig 1 [5], force sensor, para 31) that measures a temporal change (the current sensor [30] calculates the rate of change of the velocity, see para 58. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that force calculation module would be able to measure a change in force acting on the slave arm) in a force with which the machine tool is in contact with the workpiece, and the control device (Fig 1 [3], control device, para 31)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein the work performed by the work robot is work that is performed in a state where a machine tool is in contact with a workpiece, the remote work support system further comprises a force sensor that measures a temporal change in a force with which the machine tool is in contact with the workpiece, and the control device as taught by Tojo in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to give a force to the operating part in order to make an operator perceive a force based on the virtual reaction-force information outputted the module. In para 6, in Tojo.
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach performs a spectral analysis of the sounds collected by the sound collector, performs a spectral analysis of a waveform of the temporal change in the force measured by the force sensor, and determines the specific frequency range by comparing results of the spectral analysis of the sounds with results of the spectral analysis of the waveform of the temporal change in the force.
Nakamura discloses performs a spectral analysis of the sounds collected by the sound collector (Fig 1 [22], microphone, para 23), performs a spectral analysis of a waveform of the temporal change in the force measured by the force sensor, and determines the specific frequency range by comparing results of the spectral analysis of the sounds with results of the spectral analysis of the waveform of the temporal change in the force (The detected sound, from the cutting of gemstone, is input to the recording device [20], where it is stored as a sound frequency based on the grinding wheel’s speed and contact pressure of the force sensor, see para 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of performs a spectral analysis of the sounds collected by the sound collector, performs a spectral analysis of a waveform of the temporal change in the force measured by the force sensor, and determines the specific frequency range by comparing results of the spectral analysis of the sounds with results of the spectral analysis of the waveform of the temporal change in the force as taught by Nakamura in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to provide a teaching method using an ultrasonic distance meter to a multi-axis robot. In para 3, in Nakamura.
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the force sensor is attached to correspond to each shaft of the operation robot and measures a force acting on each shaft of the operation robot, and measurement results of the force sensor are taken into the control device.
Tojo discloses wherein the force sensor (Fig 1 [5], force sensor, para 31) is attached to correspond to each shaft (the sensor is attached to the end of the effector [4], para 31) of the operation robot and measures a force acting (detect force applied to the effector, para 15) on each shaft of the operation robot (Fig 1 [2], master arm, para 31), and measurement results of the force sensor are taken into the control device (Fig 1 [3], control device, para 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein the force sensor is attached to correspond to each shaft of the operation robot and measures a force acting on each shaft of the operation robot, and measurement results of the force sensor are taken into the control device as taught by Tojo in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to give a force to the operating part in order to make an operator perceive a force based on the virtual reaction-force information outputted the module. In para 6, in Tojo.
Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach wherein the force sensor is attached to correspond to each shaft of the operation robot and measures a force acting on each shaft of the operation robot, and measurement results of the force sensor are taken into the control device.
Tojo discloses wherein the force sensor (Fig 1 [5], force sensor, para 31) is attached to correspond to each shaft of the work robot (Fig 1 [1], slave arm, para 31) and measures a force acting (the sensor is attached to the end of the effector [4], para 31. Also, shown in Fig 2) on each shaft of the work robot, and measurement results of the force sensor are taken into the control device (Fig 1 [3], control device, para 31). (Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the force acting on the force sensor is transmitted to the operator to perceive the force of the slave arm (Fig 1 [2]). This is transmission is in accord to the virtual reaction force information outputted from the virtual reaction force information generating module, see para 7, 9. Though not shown, there are force sensor attached to the operation (master) arm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of wherein the force sensor is attached to correspond to each shaft of the operation robot and measures a force acting on each shaft of the operation robot, and measurement results of the force sensor are taken into the control device as taught by Tojo in Hashimoto’s invention. The motivation would have been to give a force to the operating part in order to make an operator perceive a force based on the virtual reaction-force information outputted the module. In para 6, in Tojo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Kanaoka (US Publication) US 20170050310 A1 – placement of sensors
Rossano (US Publication) US 20180154518 A1 – store data from sensor between master-slave device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS A BARBOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-9626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm, Alternate Fridays: off.
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, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARCUS A BARBOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights