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 .
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20200293302A1 (Sato).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Sato discloses a robot controller comprising:
a communicator that receives an input signal including information necessary for an operation of a robot from an external source;
Sato discloses a communicator ([0077], software management unit 31) that receives an input signal including information necessary for an operation of a robot from an external source ([0077], “based on the information of the in-line robot 45 to be updated transmitted from the data analysis server 5”)
a storage that stores a control software; and
Sato discloses a storage that stores a control software ([0078], data storage unit 32).
a processor that creates a command signal including a command value for operating the robot based on the input signal and the control software, wherein
[0077], “The software management unit 31 instructs, based on the information of the in-line robot 45 to be updated transmitted from the data analysis server 5, the corresponding off-line robot 35 to output backup data (step S501). The off-line robot 35 outputs the backup data to the data storage unit 32 in response to an output instruction signal from the software management unit 31.”
the processor reads out from the storage or from the external source
a past input signal which is the input signal previously input to the communicator, and a past command signal which is a command signal created based on the past input signal,
[0078-0081], “The data storage unit 32 starts to store the backup data output from each off-line robots 35 (step S502). The time measuring unit 34 receives a backup start signal from the data storing unit 32 and starts to measure the update time of the update-software (step S503). When the storing (i.e., the saving) of the backup data of each off-line robot 35 has been completed, the data storage unit 32 outputs a backup completion signal to the evaluation unit 33 (step S504). Upon receiving the backup completion signal from the data storage unit 32, the evaluation unit 33 starts to install the update-software and the evaluation program in the off-line robot 35 to be updated (step S505).”, where step S502 starts from a past input signal that creates a past command signal S503. See also. Fig. 5 for the flowchart of the process.
after updating the control software, the processor creates a confirmation command signal which is the command signal based on the past input signal and the control software, and
[0082], “When the installation of the update-software and the evaluation program has been completed, the evaluation unit 34 outputs an installation completion signal to the time measurement unit 33 (step S506).”, where step S506 outputs a command signal to stop the time measurement unit ([0083]).
the processor compares the past command signal with the confirmation command signal and outputs a comparison result.
[0084], “The evaluation unit 33 evaluates the update-software according to the evaluation program (step S508), and determines whether or not it is possible to update the in-line robot by the update-software (step S509).”
Regarding claim 2, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robot controller further comprises:
wherein the past input signal is stored along with its input timing to the communicator,
See Fig. 3 of Sato, where the figure shows input timings of the robot operations with input timings of the signal.
the past command signal is stored along with its output timing to the robot,
See Fig. 5 of Sato, where the figure shows that S503 starts to measure the time of starting the update.
the processor creates the confirmation command signal based on the past input signal input in accordance with the input timing and the updated control software, and
In view of the citations of claim 1 above, Sato discloses the flowchart of Fig.5 that comprises creating the confirmation signal based on the past input signal input in accordance with the input timing and the updated control software.
the processor compares the past command signal with the confirmation command signal while taking into consideration the output timing, and outputs the comparison result.
See Fig. 5, where step S509 determines whether the output timing whether or not the update is possible to the in-line robots based off of the received schedule and duration of the update ([0085]).
Regarding claim 3, with all of the limitations of claim 2, the robot controller further comprises:
the processor compares
a content of the command value of the past command signal with
a content of the command value of the confirmation command signal, and
further compares the output timing of the command value of the past command signal with
the output timing of the command value of the confirmation command signal, and outputs the comparison result.
Sato discloses comparing a content of the command values of the past command signal and the confirmation command signal ([0085], “whether or not it is possible to update the in-line robot”) and further comparing the output timings of the command value of the past command signal with the command value of the confirmation command signals ([0085], “transmits the update time of the update-software”), where both comparisons are outputted to the data analysis server 5 of Sato.
Regarding claim 5, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robot controller further comprises:
wherein when an instruction to start updating the control software is received from an user, the processor performs a series of processes, including updating the control software and comparing the confirmation command signal based on the updated control software with the past command signal.
[0090], “For example, when the software management unit 41 receives an input for starting the updating process from a user through an input device such as a PC, it may instruct the in-line robot 45 to be updated to output backup data.”, where receiving the input for starting the update process from a user would perform the series of processes.
Regarding claim 7, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robot controller further comprises:
wherein the processor does not output the confirmation command signal to the robot, but compares the past command signal with the confirmation command signal and outputs the comparison result.
See the citation to the last limitation of claim 2.
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200293302A1 (Sato).
Regarding claim 4, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robot controller further comprises:
wherein the processor inputs the past input signal at a time interval shorter than the input timing of the past input signal to create the confirmation command signal.
While Sato does not explicitly disclose inputting the past input signal at a time interval shorter than the input timing of the past input signal to create the confirmation command signal, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so as applicant has not disclosed that the claimed feature solves any stated problem, provides any advantage, or is used for any particular purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that the invention would perform equally well with both “a time interval shorter than the input timing of the past input signal” and a longer time interval. Specifically, applicant discloses shortening time intervals (see at least [0049] and [0060] of applicant’s disclosure) where the time intervals appear to be a design consideration as it does not appear to solve any stated problem, provide any advantage, or is used for any particular purpose. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obviousness to modify Sato to obtain the invention of claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Sato.
Regarding claim 6, with all of the limitations of claim 1, the robot controller further comprises:
wherein
if the past command signal and the confirmation command signal match, or
if a difference between the past command signal and the confirmation command signal is less than a threshold value,
the processor completes an update of the control software, and
Sato discloses that if the command signals have a difference less than a threshold value (see Fig. 7, net-idle-time list), the update proceeds to be carried out within non-operating times of the in-line robots ([0126]).
if the difference between the past command signal and the confirmation command signal is equal to or greater than the threshold value,
the processor waits for the completion of the update of the control software.
In light of the citation above, while Sato does not explicitly disclose the processor waits for the completion of the update of the control software, Sato discloses testing update times on off-line robots prior to applying to them on-line robots ([0055]) to evaluate if an update-software able to be deployed for updating a robot or if there may be other issues ([0073]). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that a processor should put the update on hold as the update may take too long to complete, possibly indicating a further issue.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEWOOK JUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM..
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, Wade Miles can be reached on (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights