DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements provided comply with the provisions of MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. A signed copy of the form is attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of AIA 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 –
Claims 1-16, 19 and 21 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Darvish et al., (Interleaved Online Task Planning, Simulation, Task Allocation and Motion Control for Flexible Human-Robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) Cooperation, IEEE).
As per claim 1, Darvish et al., teaches a control system (see Fig. 1, for the controller), comprising: a robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) configured to perform a process for controlling a robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) operable based on a target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)); an operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) configured to generate the target
PNG
media_image1.png
468
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) based on a result of the process performed by the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller); and at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) configured to store an output from each of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) and the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner), wherein the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to start performing the process cyclically (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par.) without being based on a status of the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) generating the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)).
As per claim 2, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to start generating the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) based on a result of a first process for the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) and continue generating the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) without being based on a status of a second process (see page 60, col. 2, third par., which meet first, second and Nth. process) other than the first process, and the first process and the second process (see page 60, col. 2, third par., which meet first, second and Nth. process) are included in the process performed cyclically (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par.) by the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller).
As per claim 3, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) is configured to store permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) indicating whether generation of the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) is permitted or unpermitted, the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream), and when the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) indicates that generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)), the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to generate the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)).
As per claim 4, Darvish et al., teaches wherein when the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) indicates that the generation of the target operation is unpermitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)), the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to stop generating the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) without being based on a status of generation of the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)).
As per claim 5, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) during an operation of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), and when the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) indicates that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)), the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to regenerate a target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) to be performed by the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) from a specific time in a future during the operation of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot).
As per claim 6, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to regenerate the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) to be performed by the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) from the specific time to cause a speed and an acceleration (see Fig. 3, wherein the sequence of action meet speed and acceleration during the task) of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) at the specific time in the regenerated target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) to respectively match a speed and an acceleration (see Fig. 3, wherein the sequence of action meet speed and acceleration during the task) of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) at the specific time in a current target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot).
As per claim 7, Darvish et al., teaches wherein during the operation of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to determine an intermediate stop position at which the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) stops before reaching an end position of a movement operation of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), and update the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)), and when the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) indicates that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)), the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to regenerate the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) to be performed by the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) from the specific time to a time at which the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) stops at the intermediate stop position during the operation of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot).
As per claim 8, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) is configured to store priority data (see page 59, col. 2, first par.) indicating whether the operation of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) is to be prioritized or safety (see page 58, item I. first par.) associated with the robot is to be prioritized (see Fig. 1, for the robot), the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to refer to the priority data (see page 59, col. 2, first par.) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) in response to the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) stopping at the intermediate stop position (see page 64, col. 2, third par. for successful end of the process), when the priority data (see page 59, col. 2, first par.) indicates that the operation of the robot is to be prioritized (see Fig. 1, for the robot) and when a factor causing the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) to stop is removed, the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) to instruct the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) to generate a target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) to move from the intermediate stop position (see page 64, col. 2, third par. for successful end of the process), and when the priority data (see page 59, col. 2, first par.)indicates that the safety (see page 58, item I. first par.) associated with the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) is to be prioritized, the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured not to update the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream).
As per claim 9, Darvish et al., teaches wherein when a collision of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) occurs, the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to determine a destination of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) to mitigate the collision of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) and update the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)), and when the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) indicates that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) after the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) stops at the intermediate stop position (see page 64, col. 2, third par. for successful end of the process), the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to generate a target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) to move from the intermediate stop position to the destination (see page 64, col. 2, third par. for successful end of the process).
As per claim 10, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to determine whether a current target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) is to be prioritized, when the current target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the robot is not to be prioritized (see Fig. 1, for the robot, and page 59, col. 2, first par., wherein prioritized optimization problems have been taken as not prioritized), the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) to instruct the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) to regenerate the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) to be performed by the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) from the specific time, and when the current target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) is to be prioritized, the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured not to update the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream).
As per claim 11, Darvish et al., further comprising: a plurality of processors configured to output information to be used to control the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), wherein the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) is configured to store a plurality of pieces of output data output from the plurality of respective processors at respective times, and the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) includes a reading processor configured to obtain the plurality of pieces of output data cyclically (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par.) from the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.).
As per claim 12, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to identify, based on the plurality of pieces of output data, a control state (see Fig. 1) to be set from a plurality of control state (see Fig. 1)s of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) being predefined, and perform a process corresponding to the identified control state (see Fig. 1).
As per claim 13, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) includes a condition determiner configured to determine, based on the plurality of pieces of output data, whether a current control state (see Fig. 1) of the plurality of control state (see Fig. 1)s is to be maintained, and an operation controller configured to perform a predetermined process for a control state (see Fig. 1) of the plurality of control states being set based on an output from the condition determiner (see Fig. 1).
As per claim 14, Darvish et al., further comprising: a plurality of processors configured to output information to be used to control the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), wherein the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) is configured to store a plurality of pieces of output data output from the plurality of respective processors at respective times, and the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) includes a reading processor configured to obtain the plurality of pieces of output data cyclically (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par.) from the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.).
As per claim 15, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) includes a drivable portion, the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to generate the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the drivable portion, the plurality of processors includes a communication controller (see Fig. 1, for communication controller) configured to control a communicator to transmit data to a drivable portion controller configured to control the drivable portion, when generation of the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) is complete, the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to write, into the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), generation target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) data indicating the generated target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) for the drivable portion, the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) is configured to store transmittability data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. items 1-3) indicating whether transmission of the generation target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) data is permitted or unpermitted, when generation of the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) is complete, the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update the transmittability data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. items 1-3) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that transmission of the generation target operation data is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)), and when the transmittability data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. items 1-3) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) indicates that the transmission of the generation target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) data is permitted, the communication controller (see Fig. 1, for communication controller) is configured to cause the communicator to transmit the generation target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) data in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.).
As per claim 16, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the plurality of processors includes a host controller configured to provide an instruction to the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller), the host controller is configured to write first output data output from the host controller into the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), and the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update, based on the first output data in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)).
As per claim 19, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the plurality of processors includes a sensor processor (see page 59, col. 1, item B. second par.) configured to perform a process using a detection result obtained by a sensor configured to detect a state of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), the sensor processor (see page 59, col. 1, item B. second par.) is configured to write fourth output data output from the sensor processor (see page 59, col. 1, item B. second par.) into the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), and the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update, based on the fourth output data in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)).
As per claim 21, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to determine, of an upper acceleration (see Fig. 3, wherein the sequence of action meet speed and acceleration during the task) limit and an upper speed limit of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), at least the upper acceleration (see Fig. 3, wherein the sequence of action meet speed and acceleration during the task) limit based on the plurality of pieces of output data in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), and write at least the determined upper acceleration (see Fig. 3, wherein the sequence of action meet speed and acceleration during the task) limit into the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), and the operation planner (see Fig. 1, for the planner) is configured to generate the target operation (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)) based on at least the upper acceleration (see Fig. 3, wherein the sequence of action meet speed and acceleration during the task) limit in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 17, 18 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darvish et al., in view of Kumagai et al. (US 11,577,399).
As per claim 17, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the plurality of processors includes an identifier configured to identify (see Figs. 1), an end position of a movement operation of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), the identifier is configured to write second output data output from the identifier into the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), and the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update, based on the second output data in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)). Darvish et al., was silent about detection based on an image captured with a camera.
Kumagai et al. teaches a detection based on an image captured with a camera (see Fig. 1, element 3, for vision sensor and col. 3, lines 19-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the robot of Darvish et al., with the robot of Kumagai et al. which contains a vision sensor/camera for detection, this combination would have provide “a vision sensor that is configured to rake image of a workpiece” (see Kumagai’s et al. abs.), thereby improving the control system as a whole.
As per claim 18, Darvish et al., teaches wherein an operation of the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), into the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), and the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update, based on the third output data in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)). Darvish et al., was silent an obstacle detector configured to detect, based on an image captured with a camera, an obstacle obstructing, the obstacle detector is configured to write third output data output from the obstacle detector.
Kumagai et al. teaches an obstacle detector configured to detect (see Fig. 1, element 3, for vision sensor and col. 3, lines 19-33), a detection based on an image captured with a camera (see Fig. 1, element 3, for vision sensor and col. 3, lines 19-33); and the obstacle detector is configured to write third output data output from the obstacle detector (see Fig. 1, element 3, for vision sensor and col. 3, lines 19-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the robot of Darvish et al., with the robot of Kumagai et al. which contains a vision sensor/camera for detection, this combination would have provide “a vision sensor that is configured to rake image of a workpiece” (see Kumagai’s et al. abs.), thereby improving the control system as a whole.
As per claim 20, Darvish et al., teaches wherein the plurality of processors includes a person detector (see Fig. 1, for the person/operator/technician) configured to detect, a person located around the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot), the person detector (see Fig. 1, for the person/operator/technician) is configured to write sixth output data output from the person detector (see Fig. 1, for the person/operator/technician) into the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), and the robot (see Fig. 1, for the robot) controller (see Fig. 1, for the controller) is configured to update, based on the sixth output data in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.), the permissibility data (see page 59, col. 1, item B. first par., for continuous data stream) in the at least one storage (see page 59, col. 1, item A. first par.) to indicate that the generation of the target operation is permitted (see page 59, col. 2, item 2)). Darvish et al., was silent about detection based on an image captured with a camera.
Kumagai et al. teaches a detection based on an image captured with a camera (see Fig. 1, element 3, for vision sensor and col. 3, lines 19-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the robot of Darvish et al., with the robot of Kumagai et al. which contains a vision sensor/camera for detection, this combination would have provide “a vision sensor that is configured to rake image of a workpiece” (see Kumagai’s et al. abs.), thereby improving the control system as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MCDIEUNEL MARC whose telephone number is (571) 272-6964. The examiner can normally be reached on Work 9:00 AM to 7:30.
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)-273-3976.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PNG
media_image2.png
275
275
media_image2.png
Greyscale
/McDieunel Marc/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights