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 5/7/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(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) 1, 4-9 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ivanov (12,122,049).
For claims 1, 6, 12 and 15, Ivanov discloses a computer comprising:
a processor; a storage unit; and a display device configured to display a setting screen of an effector restriction which is a restriction on a change in at least one of a position or an orientation of an effector of a robot as seen from predetermined reference coordinates (Fig. 1, 3-6, 8), wherein the setting screen is for setting the effector restriction based at least on an input by a user (Col. 2, ln 4-28, col. 10, ln 21-67, where the user can modify settings relate to various components and parameters of the robot on the display), and
the processor is configured to perform a simulation that causes a model of the robot to perform an avoidance operation by using at least the effector restriction, and determine whether or not the avoidance operation satisfies a criterion (At least in col. 8, ln 61 – col. 9, ln 28, col. 9, ln 29-45, 57-67, where simulation is performed for the robot that perform the avoidance operation using the effector restriction and determine if the operations satisfied various criterions, such as task rate, safety, energy, cost).
For claim 4, Ivanovo discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit is capable of storing a plurality of the effector restrictions (Fig. 8, col. 3, ln 22-51, col. 16, ln 53-64, where various data, programs and operation data are stored in the storage unit, including operating restrictions).
For claim 5, Ivanovo discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit is capable of storing an effector restriction set made by combining the plurality of effector restrictions (Col. 8, ln 44 – col. 9, ln 19, col. 18, ln 44 – col. 21, where various and plurality of effector parameters relate to the robot system is stored in the storage unit).
For claim 7, Ivanov discloses the controller according to claim 1, comprising an input unit which enables input of the effector restriction (Col. 16, ln 1-13, col. 18, ln 44-65, where user can use input unit to input parameters relate to the robot).
For claim 8, Ivanov discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the storage unit stores a plurality of the effector restrictions, the plurality of effector restrictions respectively correspond to at least one of a type of the effector and a type of an object to which the effecter conduct an operation, and the processor is configured to set the effector restrictions based at least on one of information regarding the type of the effector or information regarding the type of the object and an input by the user (Col. 4, ln 9-43, col. 13, ln 5-29, where the type of components, link are stored).
For claim 9, Ivanov discloses the controller according to claim 8, wherein the input of the user is for setting a requirement required by the user regarding the operation by the effector (Col. 4, ln 7-43, col. 6, ln 5-32).
For claim 11, Ivanov discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the effector restriction includes a plurality of effector restriction elements, the controller is configured, for each of the plurality of effector restriction elements, to accept a setting of a designated restriction that causes the processor to use a value designated by the user or a setting of an submissive restriction that allows a change by the processor (Col. 4, ln 7-43, col. 6, ln 5-32, where the settings and parameters designated for the operations and movements of the selected components by the user is assigned and set for the robot effector ).
For claims 13 and 16, Ivanov discloses the computer according to claims 12 and 15, wherein the processor is configured to modify the effector restriction to satisfy the criterion when the avoidance operation does not satisfy the criterion (Col. 6, ln 5-32, where the system can iterative and update various parameters and optimizing the robot path).
For claim 14, Ivanov discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the effector restriction is capable of setting at least one of a restriction of speed as seen from the predetermined reference coordinates of the effector (Col. 8, ln 44-60), or a restriction of acceleration as seen from the predetermined reference coordinates of the effector (Col. 7, ln 65 – col. 8, ln 3).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ivanov (12,122,049) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Abrams (12,508,715).
For claims 2 and 3, Ivanov discloses the controller according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose the processor is configured to conduct a calculation of a position of the target to be avoided based on the output of the sensor that is an approach detection sensor; determines a possibility of contact between at least one of the robot or the effector and the target to be avoided based on a result of the calculation. H in the same field of the art discloses the processor is configured to conduct a calculation of a position of the target to be avoided based on the output of the sensor that is an approach detection sensor (Col. 78, ln 1-32, where various sensors measure various position and orientation information); determines a possibility of contact between at least one of the robot or the effector and the target to be avoided based on a result of the calculation (Col. 56, ln 29 – col. 57, ln 27, where the system determines the possibly of collision with objects based on sensors measurements). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Ivanov to conduct a calculation of a position of the target to be avoided based on the output of the sensor that is an approach detection sensor; determines a possibility of contact between at least one of the robot or the effector and the target to be avoided based on a result of the calculation, as taught by Ivanov to accurately determine objects and robot locations and orientations within the operating environment.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Ivanov (12,122,049) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Kogan (US 2026/0257358 A1).
For claim 10, Ivanov discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the effector restriction includes a plurality of effector restriction elements (Col. 7, ln 58 – col. 8, ln 3, col. 8, ln 44 – col. 9, ln 19), but does not specifically disclose the effector restriction is one to which a priority can be set to at least one of the plurality of effector restriction elements, and the processor is configured to cause the robot to perform the avoidance operation by using at least the effector restriction including the priority. Kogan in the same field of the art discloses the effector restriction is one to which a priority can be set to at least one of the plurality of effector restriction elements, and the processor is configured to cause the robot to perform the avoidance operation by using at least the effector restriction including the priority (Para. 0009-0013, 0017-0023, where robot constraints are prioritized and are assigned for the robot operations). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Ivanov to configure the effector restriction is one to which a priority can be set to at least one of the plurality of effector restriction elements, and the processor is configured to cause the robot to perform the avoidance operation by using at least the effector restriction including the priority, as taught by Kogan to increase the dynamics and flexibility of prioritizing different constraints associated with the robot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2024/0253223 A1) Satoh et al. discloses a robot operation planning device prioritizing operating constraints and robot motion planning.
(US 2022/0379478 A1) Raghunathan et al. discloses an object manipulation and collision avoidance controls for robot planning the path toward and object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights