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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. JP2023-026764 filed on 02/22/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oono (US 2020/0306957)
Regarding claim 1:
Oono teaches a drive system comprising:
an image processor that processes an image obtained from a camera that captures at least a drive range of a driven member and extracts a detection target from the image (determining whether at least one of the operation of the robot and an operation of the device is a predetermined operation based on a result of processing performed by the image processing unit, see at least ¶0009, ¶0095-0096);
a vibration calculator that calculates a vibration component of the detection target based on a position of the detection target that has been extracted and a target position of the detection target (see at least ¶0095-0096, Fig. 8); and
a control signal correction part that corrects a control signal for driving the driven member with the vibration component to suppress vibration of the detection target (see at least ¶0091).
Oono teaches multiple exemplary techniques of determining the vibration amount based on the target position and measured positions, including measuring consecutive images, which with respect to TC1 and TC2, would meet the claim limitation.
Oono suggests, but does not explicitly teach the vibration component being based on a difference between the target position and an extracted position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the vibration correction system and method as taught by Oono by comparing any available positional data representative of the vibration as suggested by Oono, including comparing a difference with the target position as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2:
Oono further teaches wherein the control signal correction part performs the correction when the vibration component exceeds a predetermined threshold range, and outputs the control signal without performing the correction when the vibration component does not exceed the predetermined threshold range (correcting a command when vibration amount deviates from the determination range, see at least ¶0091, ¶0097-0099).
Regarding claim 4:
Oono further teaches wherein the vibration calculator calculates the vibration component at each control timing of a predetermined cycle, and the control signal correction part performs the correction at each of the control timings when the vibration component exceeds a predetermined threshold range see at least ¶0045, ¶0092, ¶0097-0098).
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 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 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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oono as in claim 1 above in view of Peine et al. (US 2022/0134555).
Regarding claims 3 and 5:
Oono teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Oono further teaches wherein the vibration calculator calculates the vibration component at each control timing of a predetermined cycle (see at least ¶0045, ¶0092).
Oono is silent as to the particular correction signal used to correct the vibration.
Peine teaches a system and method of controlling a robotic manipulator arm, including canceling detected vibrations by superimposing a correction signal corresponding to a magnitude of the vibration component calculated at the control timing that has been determined on the control signal in opposite phase (see at least Fig. 4, ¶0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the robot control system and method including vibration correction as taught by Oono with the well-known anti-phase signal cancellation technique as taught by Peine in order to effectively nullify unwanted vibration components from a robot movement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oono as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Barry et al. (US 2022/0193906).
Regarding claim 6:
Oono teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Oono is silent as to an operation terminal for selecting a detection target.
Barry teaches a system and method of controlling a robotic manipulator, including an operation terminal that receives an input from a user, wherein the image processor sets a detection target via the operation terminal (see at least ¶0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot manipulator control system and method as taught by Oono with the technique of selecting a target via a user interface as taught by Barry in order to allow a user to direct control towards a particular object to ensure the is controlled to perform the correct function on the correct object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights