DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 04/18/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2024/070112, filed on 04/23/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8, “a marker” should be “the marker” since marker is recited earlier. Claim 18 is rejected likewise.
Claim 9, line 3, “the user” should be “a user” since user is not recited earlier. User is recited on claim 8. Claim 9 is not dependent on claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, which recites “a robot” is not clear since claim 17 is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 recites “a robot”. It is not clear whether both robot is same or different.
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, 8 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0256403 (“Fine”), and further in view of US 2018/0004188 (“Yamaguchi”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 18 and 19), Fine discloses a method for a robot controlled by an image capturing apparatus (see at least fig 1A and fig 3), the method comprising:
causing a control apparatus to obtain information about a position (see at least [0029], where “FIGS. 6A-6B illustrate aspects of using distance sensors for initially aligning the robot to equipment”; see also [0030], where “FIGS. 7A-7B illustrate visual markers placed on equipment for use, via computer vision techniques, to update an initial alignment between a robot and equipment”; see also [0116] and [0070]) and information about a position of the portion functioning as the marker to be obtained by the image capturing apparatus (see at least [0031], where “FIGS. 8A-8B illustrating using detected and reference position of visual markers (e.g., the visual markers shown in FIGS. 7A-7B) to determine an alignment difference to use for updating an initial alignment between a robot and equipment”; see also [0055]); and
controlling the robot based on the information about the position (see at least [0021], where “configuring a robot, having a robotic arm, to interface with equipment to perform a task, the system enabling the robot to be initially aligned to the equipment using one or more distance sensors and further aligned to the equipment using computer vision techniques”).
Fine does not disclose obtain information about a position of a portion functioning as a marker. However, Yamaguchi discloses a method wherein obtain information about a position of a portion functioning as a marker (see at least fig 1, where 21 is camera and mk is position of marker. See also [0155], [0158] and fig 36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fine to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi by including the above feature for providing correct control instruction by verifying position.
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi further discloses a method wherein a position at which the portion functioning as the marker is to be placed is settable by a user and a working area for the robot is settable by the user (see at least [0162], where “The robot control apparatus 30 sets the control point T based on control point setting information input from a user in advance.”; see also [0166] and [0362]).
Regarding claim 14, Fine further discloses a method wherein the method causes the control apparatus to obtain the information about the position of the portion functioning as the marker in a state where the portion is preliminarily placed by the robot and the information about the position of the portion functioning as the marker obtained by the image capturing apparatus (see at least [0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Fine further discloses a method wherein the portion functioning as the marker is at least one of a groove, a reference portion disposed in a working area for the robot (see at least [0031], where “reference position”; see also [0049]), a seal imprint to be formed using a stamp controlled by the robot, or a mark to be formed using a stamp controlled by the robot.
Regarding claim 16, Yamaguchi further discloses a method wherein the portion functioning as the marker is printed on a sheet (see at least fig 1, where marker is printed on a surface/sheet).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Fine further discloses an article manufacturing method comprising: manufacturing an article by controlling a robot based on a method according to claim 1 (see at least [0003] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 20, Fine further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for executing the method according to claim 1 (see at least [0178] and citation of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0256403 (“Fine”), and in view of US 2018/0004188 (“Yamaguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0061163 (“Yamaguchi’163”).
Regarding claim 2, Fine in view of Yamaguchi does not disclose claim 2. However, Yamaguchi’163 discloses a method wherein information about a position of a predetermined portion of the robot in a case where the portion functioning as the marker is placed by the robot is obtained as the information about the position of the portion functioning as the marker (see at least [0061-62], fig 7 and [0003]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fine in view of Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi’163 by including the above feature for avoiding wrong placement of marker so that substrate damage can be controlled.
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi’163 further discloses a method wherein the method causes the control apparatus to obtain the information about the position of the predetermined portion of the robot in a case where the robot releases the portion functioning as the marker (see at least [0066] and [0094]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi’163 further discloses a method wherein the method causes, in a case where the portion functioning as the marker is to be placed by the robot, the control apparatus to obtain the information about the position of the predetermined portion of the robot determined to have stabilized before the portion functioning as the marker is released (see at least fig 10, where marker is placed on a predetermined position by robot. It is obvious that the robot is stabilized before marker placement for avoiding wrong position and distortion).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi’163 further discloses a method wherein the control method causes the control apparatus to obtain the information about the position of the predetermined portion of the robot in a state where the portion functioning as the marker is brought into contact with a location where the portion functioning as the marker is to be placed (see at least [0107-109]).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi’163 further discloses a method wherein the method causes the control apparatus to obtain the information about the position of the predetermined portion of the robot in a case where information about a force obtained by bringing the portion functioning as the marker into contact with the location where the portion functioning as the marker is to be placed is in a predetermined state (see at least [0065] and [0112]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0256403 (“Fine”), and in view of US 2018/0004188 (“Yamaguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2019/0061163 (“Yamaguchi’163”), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2025/0312925 (“Nitanai”).
Regarding claim 3, Fine in view of Yamaguchi and Yamaguchi’163 does not disclose claim 3. However, Nitanai discloses a method wherein the method causes the control apparatus to obtain information indicating a correction value for correcting a command value for controlling the robot based on the information about the position of the predetermined portion of the robot and the information about the position of the placed portion functioning as the marker obtained by the image capturing apparatus (see at least [0035], where “the robot control apparatus 60 automatically corrects teaching data based on the position and attitude of the workpiece W calculated by the object recognition unit 50.”; see also [0034], where “a predetermined marker B2 may be attached to a tip end of the arm portion 21 of the robot 20, and the camera 30 captures an image of the marker B2 while the arm portion 21 is being operated…the object recognition unit 50 acquires parameters for converting a position and attitude (position) of an object in the coordinate system of the camera 30 recognized based on an image captured by the camera 30 from an imaging position during calibration to a position and attitude (position) of the object in the coordinate system of the robot 20.”; see also [0047-48]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fine in view of Yamaguchi and Yamaguchi’163 to incorporate the teachings of Nitanai by including the above feature for avoiding delay during manufacturing and damage of substrate by determining correction amount.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0256403 (“Fine”), and in view of US 2018/0004188 (“Yamaguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2019/0061163 (“Yamaguchi’163”), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2020/0246968 (“Yoshikawa”).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi’163 further discloses a method wherein (see at least [0085], where “the operator operates the input device 402 so as to make it possible to issue instructions, such as instructions to execute various processing, to the control device 5.”; see also [0096] and [0111]).
Fine in view of Yamaguchi and Yamaguchi’163 does not disclose the following limitation:
a notification of an execution order…the execution order is updated in a case where the user deletes the position.
However, Yoshikawa discloses a method wherein a notification of an execution order…the execution order is updated in a case where the user deletes the position (see at least [0056-57], [0085], [0087], [0093]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fine in view of Yamaguchi and Yamaguchi’163 to incorporate the teachings of Yoshikawa by including the above feature for providing supervised control of robot and avoid any unplanned or not updated control instruction.
Regarding claim 10, Fine further discloses a method wherein the method causes the control apparatus to obtain the information indicating the correction value for correcting the command value based on the information about the position of the predetermined portion of the robot, the information about the position of the placed portion functioning as the marker obtained by the image capturing apparatus, and a reference position for control execution for the robot (see at least [0032], [0046] and [0142]).
Regarding claim 11, Fine further discloses a method wherein the information indicating the correction value is in at least one of a map form, a functional form, or a tabular form (see at least [0032] and [0094]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0256403 (“Fine”), and in view of US 2018/0004188 (“Yamaguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2019/0061163 (“Yamaguchi’163”), as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of US 2020/0246968 (“Yoshikawa”), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2015/0038763 (“Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 12, Fine further discloses a method wherein the method causes the control apparatus to obtain a position other than the position at which the portion functioning as the marker has been placed in the information indicating the correction value (see at least fig 8A-C).
Fine in view of Yamaguchi and Yamaguchi’163 does not disclose the following limitation:
indicating the correction value as a weighted average of differences obtained at positions.
However, Suzuki discloses a method wherein indicating the correction value as a weighted average of differences obtained at positions (see at least [0020-21]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fine in view of Yamaguchi and Yamaguchi’163 to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki by including the above feature for providing most accurate control instruction by accounting relative importance of different data point.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0256403 (“Fine”), and in view of US 2018/0004188 (“Yamaguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2019/0061163 (“Yamaguchi’163”), as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of US 2020/0246968 (“Yoshikawa”), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 2006/0036125 (“Viswanathan”).
Regarding claim 13, Fine further discloses a method wherein the method causes the control apparatus to visualize the information indicating the correction value (see at least fig 7A-B and fig 8A-C).
Fine in view of Yamaguchi and Yamaguchi’163 does not disclose the following limitation:
indicating the correction value using an arrow representing an amount and an orientation as a size and a direction.
However, Viswanathan discloses a method wherein indicating the correction value using an arrow representing an amount and an orientation as a size and a direction (see at least fig 6A-B, [0097] and [0099]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fine in view of in view of Yamaguchi and Yamaguchi’163 to incorporate the teachings of Viswanathan by including the above feature for providing correct control instruction by showing correction value by arrow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights