DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Remarks
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the title.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amended drawings which are herein accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to potentially be arguing that actual physical motion of the electrically connected articulated robot occurs throughout the response. There is not indication of this within the claims.
Related to the above, Applicant appears to potentially be arguing controlled motion of the robot. Again, there is no indication that controlling a “set clearance amount” amounts to directly controlling the motion of the robot. Applicant’s specification indicates a much looser meaning of control, or in other words a broad meaning to the term, and furthermore, the claim is phrased as “control the robot by applying a set clearance amount”, thus the control is performed by applying, wherein applying appears to be inclusive of merely storing, setting, updating, or similar a value. In other words, the nature of “control” is explicitly provided in the claim.
Furthermore, and related to the BRI of the verb Applicant refers to paragraph [0038] of the published application in an argument appearing to argue this on Page 13 of the Remarks, however the “control” of the controller is clearly merely internal processing. See [0024] of the originally filed Specification. Thus, Applicant appears to teach “control” of the robot wherein it may merely mean “process”, “store”, or similar internal data manipulation to robot simulator 10 via a controller 14 or other internal component, as well as control of a physical robot based on finally determined information via output section 10e, which Applicant appears to potentially distinguish from internal control via the recitation of “directly controls”.
Applicant argues that the limitations “cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by pen and paper” (Page 15). Examiner notes that at present the claims do not recite any level of complexity beyond effectively three points connected by two lines. Figure 7 illustrates how simply these limitations may be rendered by pen and paper or imagined in the human mind. Furthermore, the nature of setting any given clearance amount is not provided for and may be even more simply rendered than as shapes as in Figure 7, and instead may simply be one or more numerical values.
Applicant’s argument of technical improvement found on Page 16 appears to indicate that the technical improvement is that of time saved. Thus, the claim must recite actual physical execution of a route by the robot based on the clearance amounts for this argument to have any merit. No “tact time” is saved merely by storing or determining values.
Applicant’s last argument found on Page 17 of the Remarks appears to discuss limitations being a judicial exception, but then rely on a limitation treated as part of the judicial exception not being part of the judicial exception. It is unclear the argument being made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Tonogai does not teach the limitation labelled as (iv) on Page 13 of the Remarks:
First, this is a contingent limitation and thus any arguments related thereto are moot with respect to Claim 9 which is a method claim. MPEP 2111.04(II) relates.
Second, the claims do not recite a limitation of “compares two clearance amounts”. The claims furthermore do not require that the two clearance amounts be different clearance amounts. This was pointed out in the Claim Interpretation section of the prior Office Action, and is further supported by Applicant’s own Drawings such as Figure 7 wherein the same clearance amount is used for two postures, and finally by the very basic nature that one may clearly set two sections of something to the same amount. There is no inherent requirement that the first and second clearance amounts be different. Thus, in such a case, the “greater” is always applied as there is no “greater”. Relatedly, there is no requirement that there be a greater, and furthermore the claim does not specifically set forth even what makes one greater than the other. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Finally, Applicant states “Nor does Tonogai condition any control” (emphasis added) on non-interference, yet immediately follows this by paraphrasing how Tonogai conditions control on interference. The limitation is with respect to non-interference, and thus discussion of how Tonogai operates under interference is irrelevant to the limitation. The limitation recites “do not interfere” rather than “do interfere” or similar. Additionally, if Tonogai conditions control on a binary interference state, then Tonogai clearly conditions the control of non-interference even with disclosure of control in an interference state. In other words, Tonogai clearly does not disclose that the robot is controlled only when there is interference.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Tonogai does not teach the limitation labelled as (iii) on Page 13 of the Remarks:
All of the reasoning provided in this argument already appears addressed above. Again, the two clearance amounts are not required to be different. Even if the same amount is set for two sections, there are still two amounts. Additionally, and again, no active “comparison” limitation is ever claimed. (iii) merely recites “determine .. based on … a greater one of the first clearance amount and the second clearance amount”. There is no step, function, etc. of determining a greater one of the two, nor what that constitutes.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Tonogai does not teach the limitation labelled as (i) on Page 13 of the Remarks:
This argument appears to presuppose one of ordinary skill in the art having significantly less knowledge in the art than appears presupposed for Applicant’s disclosure in order to hold any merit. Any given path/route/trajectory is inherently composed of an infinite number of arbitrarily labelable poses and sections between the beginning and end pose, otherwise it is not a path/route/trajectory and rather the item, in this case a robot, is stationary. Applicant appears to be describing an inherent feature of any robotic path/route/trajectory with arbitrary labels which only hold patentable significance with respect to other limitations, and not on their own. In other words, Applicant’s argument appears to be that the common knowledge of generation of a path/route/trajectory is novel.
New Claim
Applicant presents no new reasons why the new claim is patentable beyond what has already been addressed above. The claim furthermore appears to merely describe any robot having rotary joints.
Claim Interpretation
The adjectives “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. have been interpreted merely to indicate that two items might, but are not required to be, different. It is common claim construction practice to use these adjectives for ease of referring to items while maintaining a potential distinction which might be further claimed in further limitations and dependent claims. The adjectives, under the broadest reasonable interpretation do not require a particular chronological order, difference, etc. except where Applicant’s specification sets for such an explicit definition or the claim otherwise specifies as such.
The transitional phrase “to”, particularly in combination with “ensure” has been interpreted as merely indicating the intent or purpose of the preceding term, clause, or limitation and not as a positively recited limitation.
The phrases “upon a determination” and “if” are interpreted as indicating a contingent limitation. MPEP 2111.04(II) relates. Examiner notes that Claim 9 is a method claim and “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 will be used to illustrate the rejection with respect to all independent claims, thus Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under the same logic presented below.
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus electrically connected to an articulated robot, the information processing apparatus comprising:
a hardware processor configured to:
acquire each of information on the robot and information on an obstacle;
create a route along which the robot moves, wherein
the robot changes from a first posture to a second posture in a first section of the route, and changes from the second posture to a third posture in a second section of the route
set a first clearance amount to the first section to ensure a first clearance between the robot and the obstacle and a second clearance amount to the second section to ensure a second clearance between the robot and the obstacle; and
determine whether the robot and the obstacle interfere with each other in the second posture based on the information on the robot, the information on the obstacle, and a greater of the first clearance amount and the second clearance amount; and
upon a determination that the robot and the obstacle do not interfere with each other in the second posture, control the robot by applying a set clearance amount that consists of the greater of the first clearance amount or the second clearance amount to the second posture in both of the first section and the second section.
* Some limitations are both underlined and bolded as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims are unclear. The rejections below will address both conditions.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a machine. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03 relates.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) relates.
The claim recites limitations of analyzing and handling information. These limitations, as drafted, are the performance of mental processes but for the recitation of “a hardware processor”. That is, other than reciting “a hardware processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the limitations from being performed in the human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of “a hardware processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
For example, a person may “acquire” information by simply thinking about a topic, “set a clearance amount” by thinking of a value or writing it down, and “determine” interference by imagining or drawing out the situation. A person may readily create a route of the nature claimed by imagining or drawing three points connected by two lines, as illustrated in Figure 7. Furthermore, the nature of “set” or “setting” appears highly open to interpretation. If it is considered as merely storing data in computer memory, it may be considered as not a mental process. However, if considered as meaning determining or merely even selecting (as is used with the noun “setting” or “settings”), then it is a mental process.
Examiner notes that at present, there is no minimum level of complexity to the process claimed such that it may not be readily accomplished in the human mind, with or without the aid of pen and paper. Figure 7 is a clear example of how one might accomplish these limitations through drawing two lines, three points, two circles, two ellipses, and a square. There is no requirement for millisecond level real-time computation of complex matrices, or similar.
Thus, the claim recites mental processes.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of the activities being functions of “a hardware processor”, in particular one which is part of an “information processing apparatus electrically connected to an articulated robot”. The use of a computing device merely describes how to generally perform the computations using a generic device, i.e. a computer and is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating or performing the functions.
Furthermore, even if the activity of “acquire” and “set” information was considered to not be a mental process, it would alternatively still be insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, outputting, and/or fundamental computer functionality of storing information. MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) and surrounding relates.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05 relates.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer or computer component(s) cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Again, the functions of “aqcuire” or “set” if considered not a mental process are still an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and/or outputting, and/or fundamental computer functionality of storing information which is insufficient for both Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B considerations. MPEP 2106.05(g)(3) relates.
Examiner notes that while the claim recites “control the robot by applying a set clearance amount …”. Control of the robot, as indicated by Applicant’s specification, amounts to no more that “set a [value]” or change a value. Applying the value does not limit the meaning of the phrase to that of the robot being controlled to move through the route based on the clearance amount. In other words, it is not a step of control as typically understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See the following examples from Applicant’s specification:
[0024] “The output section 10e outputs a processing result or the like in the robot simulator 10 to the outside. The output section 10e directly controls the robot 20 on the basis of a processing result in the robot simulators 10. In this case, the output section 10e supplies a processing result in the robot simulator 10 to a drive mechanism such as joints”.
In other words, Applicant specifically discloses a separate item, the “output section” related to actual control of the robot, which furthermore appears to possibly still only transmit a “processing result” rather than be the robots controller.
[0025] “The display part 10f performs processing of displaying a processing result or the like in the robot simulator 10. Note that the control of the robot 20 by the robot simulator 10 is an example, and the robot simulator 10 may only output the calculation result” (emphasis added).
[0092] “In step S115, if the determination result of the determining section 13 is that the result of the interference check indicates interference (YES in S115), in response to the determination result, the controller 14 reduces the clearance amount applied to the section including the inteferring posture (step S123). To be specific, for example, the controller 14 instructs the setting section 12 to perform processing of subtracting 0. 1 mm from the applied clearance amount”.
The specification does not provide any indication that the computing device is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the providing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims, the claims merely recite additional details to the mental processes already recited or circumstantial items to the devices involved. In other words, the additional limitations merely recite details which are categorically already addressed above. For example, Claim 3 recites “control”, however Applicant’s disclosure and the phrasing of the claim itself makes it clear that this may simply be of selecting or changing a value and not actual execution of any kind of motion, simulated, real, or otherwise. See e.g. above recitations and [0085] – [0087] of Applicant’s originally filed specification with respect to “a position of the obstacle”. It is also part of a list wherein only one item is ever required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tonogai et al. (US 20210260763 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tonogai teaches:
An information processing apparatus electrically connected to an articulated robot, the information processing apparatus comprising (See at least [0102] “The robot control processing executed by the CPU reading software (a program) in the exemplary embodiments described above may be executed by various types of processor other than the CPU”):
a hardware processor configured to:
acquire each of information on the robot (See at least [0059] “The acquisition unit 20 acquires pose information, position information, obstacle information, and specification information. These information may be acquired by reading information pre-stored on the storage 14, or may be acquired from an external device”, [0060] “The pose information is information related to an initial pose and a target pose of the robot RB”, [0061] “The position information is information related to the position of the robot RB, and includes, for example, coordinate values of a position of the robot RB in three-dimensional space”, and [0063] “The specification information is information relating to the specification of the robot RB including the shape thereof”) and information on an obstacle (See at least [0062] “The obstacle information is information including a position of obstacles present in a range to interfere with the robot RB, namely a position of structural objects that may obstruct an action of the robot RB, including, for example, coordinate values of the position of an obstacle in three-dimensional space. … Moreover, the obstacle information in the present exemplary embodiment also includes, other than information relating to the position of the obstacle, for example, three-dimensional shape data representing a three-dimensional shape and size of the obstacle or a type of the obstacle”);
create a route along which the robot moves (See at least [0035] “The robot control device 10 also includes a function as a path generation device to generate a path of the robot RB” and [0036] “The robot RB moves so as to follow either plural taught points taught by a user or plural waypoints generated from a path plan”), wherein
the robot changes from a first posture to a second posture in a first section of the route, and changes from the second posture to a third posture in a second section of the route (Inherent to a route, path, trajectory, etc. See again above)
set a first clearance amount to the first section to ensure (Indication of intent of preceding and not a positively recited limitation) a first clearance between the robot and the obstacle and a second clearance amount to the second section to ensure (Indication of intent of preceding and not a positively recited limitation) a second clearance between the robot and the obstacle (Examiner first notes that the clearance amounts or each clearance are not required to be different and furthermore are simply for a given section. They are not of any particular structure, form, etc. and thus particularly broad. Therefore, a single clearance amount may read on this limitation, or any number of forms of plural clearances that may exist in a given “section”.
See at least [0065] “Note that a clearance amount may be set for the robot RB overall, or separate individual clearance amounts may be set for each joint of the joints J1 to J6”, [0066] “Moreover, the clearance amounts may be set for the robot RB alone, a clearance amount may be set for the obstacle alone, or clearance amounts may be set for both the robot RB and the obstacle. Moreover, in cases in which there are plural obstacles present, a clearance amount may be set for all the obstacles, or a clearance amount may be set for only some of the obstacles”, [0067] “The path generation unit 24 generates path information related to the path of the robot RB based on the initial pose and the target pose of the robot RB, the position of the robot RB, the position of the obstacle, the shape of the robot, and on the clearance amounts set by the setting unit 22. The path information is information related to a path from the initial pose of the robot RB to the target pose, and to the speed the robot RB moves on the path. The path is a list of poses adopted when the robot RB performs an action from the initial pose to the target pose”); and
determine whether the robot and the obstacle interfere with each other in the second posture based on the information on the robot, the information on the obstacle, and a greater of the first clearance amount and the second clearance amount (Examiner notes that there is no requirement that it be based on only the greater one, the claim being a comprising claim, and furthermore, as noted above the two clearance amounts may even be the same.
See at least [0064] “The clearance amount represents an amount of clearance to avoid the interference between the robot RB and an obstacle” and [0089] “The CPU 11 functions as the path generation unit 24 and, based on the path information and obstacle information generated at step S100, determines whether or not on the path generated at step S106 the robot RB would interfere with the obstacles (step S108)”); and
upon a determination that the robot and the obstacle do not interfere with each other in the second posture, control the robot by applying a set clearance amount that consists of the greater of the first clearance amount or the second clearance amount to the second posture in both of the first section and the second section (See preceding comments and Figure 6 and associated [0094] “Moreover, processing transitions to step S112 in cases in which the path generated at step S106 satisfies the predetermined path condition. On the other hand, processing transitions to step S102 in cases in which the path generated at step S106 does not satisfy the predetermined path condition, and the clearance amounts are then re-set” and [0095] “At step S112, an action command value based on the generated path information is output to the robot RB. The robot RB thus performs an action according to the path information”).
Regarding Claim 2, Tonogai teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the information on the robot comprises posture information and position information of the robot (See at least [0059] “The acquisition unit 20 acquires pose information, position information, obstacle information, and specification information. These information may be acquired by reading information pre-stored on the storage 14, or may be acquired from an external device”, [0060] “The pose information is information related to an initial pose and a target pose of the robot RB”, [0061] “The position information is information related to the position of the robot RB, and includes, for example, coordinate values of a position of the robot RB in three-dimensional space”), and
the information on the obstacle comprises position information and shape information of the obstacle (See at least [0062] “The obstacle information is information including a position of obstacles present in a range to interfere with the robot RB, namely a position of structural objects that may obstruct an action of the robot RB, including, for example, coordinate values of the position of an obstacle in three-dimensional space. … Moreover, the obstacle information in the present exemplary embodiment also includes, other than information relating to the position of the obstacle, for example, three-dimensional shape data representing a three-dimensional shape and size of the obstacle or a type of the obstacle”).
Regarding Claim 3, Tonogai teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is configured to:
control a position of the robot (See at least [0090] “Processing transitions to step S110 in cases in which the robot RB is determined not to interfere with the obstacles (step S108: NO). On the other hand processing transitions to step S106 in cases in which the robot RB would interfere with the obstacles (step S108: YES), and a path is re-generated so that the robot RB does not interfere with the obstacles. The processing of steps S106 and S108 is performed repeatedly until the robot RB no longer interferes with the obstacles”), a position of the obstacle (Examiner notes that the only location Applicant appears to disclose this feature is [0085] – [0087] of Applicant’s originally filed specification. However, this does not appear to disclose any specifics as to what this means. Furthermore, no structures are recited which might “control” an obstacle position in any sense beyond maybe how the position is stored/perceived/etc. Finally, no frame of reference is claimed or even disclosed for this position. Consequently, any change in a position of a robot may also be considered a change in the position of the obstacle, for example from any coordinate frame/system of a particular manipulated component of the robot), or the set clearance amount (See at least [0094] “Moreover, processing transitions to step S112 in cases in which the path generated at step S106 satisfies the predetermined path condition. On the other hand, processing transitions to step S102 in cases in which the path generated at step S106 does not satisfy the predetermined path condition, and the clearance amounts are then re-set. Namely the clearance amounts are made smaller. Then the processing of steps S102 to S110 is performed repeatedly until the generated path length satisfies the predetermined path condition.”) based on the determination of whether the robot and the obstacle interfere with each other in the second posture (See again [0090]).
Regarding Claim 4, Tonogai teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to:
if it is determined that the robot and the obstacle interfere with each other in the second posture, change the second posture of the robot to a posture in which the robot does not interfere with the obstacle (See again at least [0090]).
Regarding Claim 5, Tonogai teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to:
if it is determined that the robot and the obstacle interfere with each other in the second posture, change a target position of a posture in which the robot interferes with the obstacle to a position where the robot does not interfere with the obstacle (See again at least [0090]. Not again that as provided by [0065] “The path is a list of poses adopted when the robot RB performs an action from the initial pose to the target pose”).
Regarding Claim 6, Tonogai teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to:
if it is determined that the robot and the obstacle interfere with each other in the second posture, change a position of the robot to a position where the robot does not interfere with the obstacle (See again at least [0090]).
Regarding Claim 7, Tonogai teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to:
if it is determined that the robot and the obstacle interfere with each other in the second posture, change a position of the obstacle to a position where the obstacle does not interfere with the robot (Examiner notes that the only location Applicant appears to disclose this feature is [0085] – [0087] of Applicant’s originally filed specification. However, this does not appear to disclose any specifics as to what this means. Furthermore, no structures are recited which might “control” or “change” an obstacle position in any sense beyond maybe how the position is stored/perceived/etc. Finally, no frame of reference is claimed or even disclosed for this position. Consequently, any change in a position of a robot may also be considered a change in the position of the obstacle, for example from any coordinate frame/system of a particular manipulated component of the robot. In other words, there is no grounding perspective tied to this limitation.
Therefore, see [0090] again).
Regarding Claim 8, Tonogai teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to:
if it is determined that the robot and the obstacle interfere with each other in the second posture, change a value of a clearance amount for a section including an interfering posture to a value not causing interference (See at least [0094] “Moreover, processing transitions to step S112 in cases in which the path generated at step S106 satisfies the predetermined path condition. On the other hand, processing transitions to step S102 in cases in which the path generated at step S106 does not satisfy the predetermined path condition, and the clearance amounts are then re-set. Namely the clearance amounts are made smaller. Then the processing of steps S102 to S110 is performed repeatedly until the generated path length satisfies the predetermined path condition”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claim 1 with respect to the application of prior art, except wherein Claim 9 is a method/process claim reciting a contingent limitation. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claim 1 above. The only distinction would appear the recitation of generic computing components in Claim 10, in particular, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program” which is disclosed by [0103].
Regarding Claim 11, Tonogai teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to:
change a posture of the robot by adjusting angles of joints of the robot (See at least [0048] “The position of fingers of the robot RB or the pose of the robot RB are determined by the rotation angles of each of the joints J1 to J6”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Denenberg et al. (US 20240165806 A1) which discloses the use of “potential occupancy envelopes” (POEs) for obstacle and interference checking in robotic motion planning, wherein the POEs “may be based on the states (e.g., the current and expected positions, velocities, accelerations, geometry and/or kinematics) of the robot and the human operator” (Abstract). These POEs may be dynamic and appear equivalent in function to a “clearance amount”.
Ishikawa et al. (US 20240116180 A1) which discloses obstacle avoidance based on clearance amount setting for use with interference checking.
Kuwahara et al. (US 20180236657 A1) which discloses obstacle avoidance using a geometric model larger than the actual robot.
Nakaya et al. (US 20170348856 A1) which discloses obstacle avoidance using a geometric model larger than the actual robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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 on (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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights