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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2025 and 03/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “an input-output module to receive a stop signal for stopping the operation of the drive;
wherein the input-output module includes a first signal generator and a second signal generator, each of which is configured or programmed to generate an abnormality signal indicating that an abnormality has been detected based on a received stop signal”.
Based on the claim language, the claim should read, “an input-output module to receive a stop signal for stopping the operation of the drive;
wherein the input-output module includes a first signal generator and a second signal generator, each of which is configured or programmed to generate an abnormality signal indicating that an abnormality has been detected based on the received stop signal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase (US 20160193730 A1) in view of Veil (US 20140362480 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawase teaches a robot system comprising (robot system 1):
a robot (robot 4, fig 1);
a drive (0035 wherein “In addition to the foregoing, each controller is provided with typical circuits, such as a power supply circuit, for controlling the robot 4 (not shown)”);
a first controller configured or programmed to control operation of the robot (Fig 1-3, master controller 2); and
a second controller configured or programmed to control power to be supplied to the drive based on a command from the first controller (Fig 1-3, para 0034, 0068 wherein slave controller is provided which is configured to stop power flow by entering non conductive state based on control signal from master controller; “Furthermore, in a case in which the control unit 11 of the slave controller 3 has malfunctioned, the control unit 11 of the master controller 2 detects the malfunction and stops the output of the enable signal by making the safety monitoring unit 10 perform the emergency stop operation. As a result, the contact for power 12 of the slave controller 3 enters a non-conductive state and the emergency stop operation is performed”);
wherein each of the first controller and the second controller is configured or programmed to:
mutually monitor an operating state of each other and detect an abnormality in the operation of the robot (0026, 0067; “[0026] It is preferred that between the master controller and the slave controller, the respective first safety monitoring units are connected by a second communication path to enable monitoring of the operating state of the first safety monitoring unit within the slave controller by the first safety monitoring unit within the master controller, or to enable mutual monitoring of operating states”; “[0067] In addition, according to the present embodiment, the safety monitoring unit 10 and the control unit 11 within the master controller 2, as well as the control unit 11 of the master controller 2 and the control unit 11 of the slave controller 3, are connected to enable mutual monitoring of operating states. Therefore, even should a malfunction occur in any of the units, the emergency stop operation can be performed by another safety monitoring unit 10 or control unit 11”); and
output a stop command to stop operation of the drive when an operational abnormality, which is an abnormality in at least one of the operating state or the operation of the robot, is detected (at least in 0065-68; “[0065] In addition, each controller can be made to perform the emergency stop operation by the single operating switch 5. Therefore, all robots 4 configuring the robot system 1 can be simultaneously stopped”; “[0067] In addition, according to the present embodiment, the safety monitoring unit 10 and the control unit 11 within the master controller 2, as well as the control unit 11 of the master controller 2 and the control unit 11 of the slave controller 3, are connected to enable mutual monitoring of operating states. Therefore, even should a malfunction occur in any of the units, the emergency stop operation can be performed by another safety monitoring unit 10 or control unit 11”; “Furthermore, in a case in which the control unit 11 of the slave controller 3 has malfunctioned, the control unit 11 of the master controller 2 detects the malfunction and stops the output of the enable signal by making the safety monitoring unit 10 perform the emergency stop operation. As a result, the contact for power 12 of the slave controller 3 enters a non-conductive state and the emergency stop operation is performed”).
However, Kawase fails to explicitly teach the drive operable to serve as a driving source to drive the robot.
Veil teaches the drive operable to serve as a driving source to drive the robot (0003 wherein “This includes especially safety relays, safety controllers and sensor and actuator modules which are used for controlling and performing safety-critical tasks in the field of industrial production environments”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kasawa’s teachings of having a robot and power supply circuit to incorporate Veil’s teachings of drive operable to serve as a driving source to drive the robot. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Kawase teaches a stop controller separate from the first controller
and the second controller and configured or programmed to perform a control to stop the operation of the drive; wherein each of the first controller and the second controller is configured or programmed to output the stop command to the stop controller separately when the operational abnormality is detected (para 0020, 0075 wherein “[0020] It is also preferred that the emergency stopping means is configured by a contact for power that blocks and connects a power path”; “In addition, the contact for power 12 may be placed in the non-conductive state through a control unit of some sort, without the contact for power 12 being directly placed in the non-conductive state by the enable signal”; “In addition, the contact for power 12 may be placed in the non-conductive state through a control unit of some sort, without the contact for power 12 being directly placed in the non-conductive state by the enable signal”).
Regarding claim 3, Kawase teaches a drive circuit to supply power to the drive (0035 wherein “In addition to the foregoing, each controller is provided with typical circuits, such as a power supply circuit, for controlling the robot 4 (not shown)”);
wherein the stop controller includes a first stop controller and a second stop controller (Fig 1-2, wherein first and second contact for power 12 is provided);
each of the first controller and the second controller is configured or programmed to output the stop command to the first stop controller and the second stop controller when the operational abnormality is detected (Fig 1-2, para 0039, 0046 “As a result, the contact for power 12 enters a non-conductive state during the emergency stop and a power path is blocked”; “[0046] The slave controller 3 is provided with a configuration that is essentially the same as those of the control unit 11 and the contact for power 12 in the master controller 2, described above”); and
each of the first stop controller and the second stop controller is configured or programmed to stop operation of the drive circuit based on the stop command (0039 wherein “As a result, the contact for power 12 enters a non-conductive state during the emergency stop and a power path is blocked”).
However, Kawase fails to teach each of the first controller and the second controller is configured or programmed to output the stop command to each of the first stop controller and the second stop controller.
Kawase further teaches having similar components exchange safety information provides redundancy in the robot operations (0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kawase’s teachings of having first controller and the second controller configured to output the stop command to the first stop controller and the second stop controller when the operational abnormality is detected to incorporate Kawase’s teachings of having similar components exchange safety information for redundancy in order to have each of the first controller and the second controller is configured or programmed to output the stop command to each of the first stop controller and the second stop controller. Doing so would result in improved safety due to the redundant architecture.
Regarding claim 4, Kawase teaches wherein each of the first component and the second component is configured or programmed to mutually monitor the operating state of each other by transmitting and receiving a signal to and from each other (Fig 1-2, para 0024). Kawase also teaches the first stop controller and the second stop controller (Fig 1-2).
However, Kawase fails to teach the first stop controller and the second stop controller is configured to mutually monitor the operating state of each other.
Kawase teaches mutual monitoring of components can enhance reliability (0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Kawase’s teachings of having each of the first component and the second component is configured or programmed to mutually monitor the operating state of each other by transmitting and receiving a signal to and from each other and having the first stop controller and the second stop controller to incorporate Kawase’s teachings of mutual monitoring of components can enhance reliability in order to have the first stop controller and the second stop controller configured to mutually monitor the operating state of each other. Doing so would improve reliability via mutual monitoring (0025).
Regarding claim 6, Kawase teaches a stop signal for stopping the operation of the drive (Kasawa, 0003; “to a robot system provided with a signal line enables a robot to stop in an emergency and a wiring method for a robot system provided with a signal line that enables a robot to stop in an emergency”) and to output a generated abnormality signal to each of the first controller and the second controller (Fig 1-2, para 0015 wherein “[0015] Consequently, in a configuration in which a plurality of robot controllers, each having a plurality of systems of a means for performing an emergency stop operation by monitoring a safety input signal, are provided, each controller can be made to perform the emergency stop operation through operation of a single switch, with simple wiring”).
However, Kawase fails to teach having an input-output module to receive the stop signal; wherein the input-output module includes a first signal generator and a second signal generator, each of which is configured or programmed to generate an abnormality signal indicating that an abnormality has been detected based on a received stop signal; and each of the first signal generator and the second signal generator is operable to output a generated abnormality signal to each of the first controller and the second controller.
Kawase further teaches having similar components exchange safety information provides redundancy in the robot operations (0016).
Veil teaches having an input-output module to receive the stop signal (Fig 1 wherein module 24 is provided which receives stop signal from emergency-off button 46); wherein the input-output module communicates with a first signal generator and a second signal generator (Fig 1, 0059 wherein 2 redundant processors 28a-b are provided), each of which is configured or programmed to generate an abnormality signal indicating that an abnormality has been detected based on a received stop signal; and each of the first signal generator and the second signal generator is operable to output a generated abnormality signal (Fig 1, 0059 wherein processors 28a-b generate signal to stop operation; “The processing units 28a, 28b can be provided, for example, in the form of microcontrollers. The processing units 28a, 28b are here connected in each case to the I/O part 24. The processing units 28a, 28b process the input signal redundantly with respect to one another and perform logical signal combinations (e.g. by comparing the signals, which is shown by means of an arrow 29 in FIG. 1) in order to generate the output signal in dependence thereon”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kawase’s teachings of having a stop signal for stopping the operation of the drive and to output a generated abnormality signal to each of the first controller and the second controller to incorporate Kawase’s teachings of having similar components exchange safety information for redundancy and Veil’s teachings of having an input-output module to receive the stop signal wherein the input-output module communicates with a first signal generator and a second signal generator, each of which is configured or programmed to generate an abnormality signal in order to have an input-output module to receive the stop signal; wherein the input-output module includes a first signal generator and a second signal generator, each of which is configured or programmed to generate an abnormality signal indicating that an abnormality has been detected based on a received stop signal; and each of the first signal generator and the second signal generator is operable to output a generated abnormality signal to each of the first controller and the second controller. Doing so would result in improved safety due to the redundant architecture. Furthermore, having the input-output module including a first signal generator and a second signal generator constitutes rearranging parts of an invention involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Kawase teaches the first controller and the second controller is configured or programmed to output the stop command (at least in 0065-68; “[0065] In addition, each controller can be made to perform the emergency stop operation by the single operating switch 5. Therefore, all robots 4 configuring the robot system 1 can be simultaneously stopped”; “[0067] In addition, according to the present embodiment, the safety monitoring unit 10 and the control unit 11 within the master controller 2, as well as the control unit 11 of the master controller 2 and the control unit 11 of the slave controller 3, are connected to enable mutual monitoring of operating states. Therefore, even should a malfunction occur in any of the units, the emergency stop operation can be performed by another safety monitoring unit 10 or control unit 11”).
However, Kawase fails to teach a communication module to allow a stop signal for stopping the operation of the drive to be input thereto from an external device; wherein each of the first controller and the second controller is configured or programmed to output the stop command based on the stop signal acquired via the communication module.
Kawase further teaches having similar components exchange safety information provides redundancy in the robot operations (0016).
Veil teaches a communication module to allow a stop signal for stopping the operation of the drive to be input thereto from an external device (Fig 1 wherein module 24 is provided which receives stop signal from emergency-off button 46); wherein each of a first processor 28a and a second processor 28b is configured or programmed to output the stop command based on the stop signal acquired via the communication module (Fig 1, 0059 wherein processors 28a-b generate signal to stop operation; “The processing units 28a, 28b can be provided, for example, in the form of microcontrollers. The processing units 28a, 28b are here connected in each case to the I/O part 24. The processing units 28a, 28b process the input signal redundantly with respect to one another and perform logical signal combinations (e.g. by comparing the signals, which is shown by means of an arrow 29 in FIG. 1) in order to generate the output signal in dependence thereon”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kawase’s teachings of having the first controller and the second controller is configured or programmed to output the stop command to incorporate Kawase’s teachings of having similar components exchange safety information for redundancy and Veil’s teachings of a communication module to allow a stop signal for stopping the operation of the drive to be input thereto from an external device wherein each of a first processor 28a and a second processor 28b is configured or programmed to output the stop command based on the stop signal acquired via the communication module in order to have a communication module to allow a stop signal for stopping the operation of the drive to be input thereto from an external device; wherein each of the first controller and the second controller is configured or programmed to output the stop command based on the stop signal acquired via the communication module. Doing so would result in improved safety by allowing emergency shutdown of the robot during malfunction or emergency. Furthermore, having the first controller and the second controller configured to output the stop command based on the stop signal would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods of having redundant safety related architecture to yield predictable results of improved safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8-9 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 SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights