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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 05/15//2025, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-10 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2025; 05/15/2025 and 08/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns / lines numbers or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Examiner has also cited references in PTO-892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonnet Des Tuves (US 2017/0001307-from IDS), hereinafter “Bonnet”.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 10, Bonnet discloses a robot controller / the associated robot system and the associated method, configured to control a robot, the robot controller (e.g., controlling an automated work cell 2 as shown in figure 1 – having controller 10 and PCL 6) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
546
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a communication interface (fig. 1: communication board 12) configured to exchange digital data with a controller (fig. 1: controller 10 / PCL 6) (see [0039] disclosing the robot controller 10 is equipped with a communication board 12 by which the robot controller 10 connects both to the fieldbus 5 and an internal PCI bus, not shown, on which a board supporting the computing unit 11 is also connected…. See also [0038] disclosing the PLC 6 and the robot controller 10 are connected by a fieldbus 5 that makes it possible to exchange Boolean and digital information available in the form of inputs/outputs.); and
a processor (fig. 1: computing unit 11) configured to:
generate a robot program including a plurality of motion instructions of the robot (automated work cell 2) based on instruction identification data included in the digital data input via the communication interface (fig. 1: communication board 12) (see [0035] disclosing the automated work cell 2 comprises a robot controller 10 containing a computing unit 11 able to execute command programs of the robot arm 4. Preferably, the computing unit 11 is suitable for executing programs written in the VAL 3 language. Alternatively, the computing unit 11 may be suitable for executing programs written in other types of languages…. See also [0036] disclosing computing unit 11 of the robot controller 10 generates movements from movement orders, i.e., computes articulation positions to be reached for each of the six axes A1 to A6, by applying the kinematic model associated with the robot arm 4, then computing positions to be reached for each motor M1 to M6, taking any reductions and couplings into account…. see also [0050-0053] disclosing to program the execution of a trajectory of the robot arm 4, the programmer of the PLC 6 uses a single movement instruction comprising the references to the variables of the database that define the desired trajectory. An instruction refers to a step of the program that is interpreted or compiled by a processor that will execute that instruction before going on to the next instruction. For example, in the ST (Structured Text) language, an instruction to initiate the execution of a trajectory may be expressed in the form of a MOVE instruction with four numerical parameters, written as follows: [0051] MOVE (i, n ,m ,k) Where:—the variable i may assume the values 0, 1 and 2 and determines the type of trajectory to be used (0: articular, 1: Linear, 2: Circular); [0052] the variable n (between 0 and N) references the trajectory points to be used; [0053] the variable m (between 0 and M) references the geometry of the tool 40 to be used; [0054] the variable k (between 0 and K) references the kinematic parameters to be used.); and
execute the generated robot program (see [0055] disclosing during the execution of the MOVE instruction, the computing unit of the PLC 6 copies the values of the four parameters of the MOVE instruction in the corresponding outputs as they are defined in the exchange protocol between the PLC 6 and the robot controller 10. After transmission by the fieldbus 5, the outputs are made available as inputs in the robot controller 10. These inputs are interpreted in the computing unit 11 by a server program preferably written in the VAL 3 language, which in turn develops corresponding elementary movement instructions iME for the end of the robot arm 4. The computing unit of the PLC 6 thus sends a trajectory order Om that corresponds to an execution instruction for a trajectory of the control program of the method. The computing unit 11 determines the elementary movements to be made to execute the trajectory specified in the trajectory order Om and compute corresponding movement instructions iD for each of the motors M1 to M6 of the robot arm 4… See also [0067] disclosing the computing unit 11 includes a server program 30 written in VAL 3 that interprets the inputs/outputs 28 according to the defined protocol and generates the sequence of elementary movement instructions corresponding to the trajectory order Om by recovering the characteristics of the trajectory from the database 15. The elementary movement instructions iME come from the trajectory order Om stored in a pile of instructions 32, then are processed one after the next by a trajectory generator 34 that computes the movement instructions iD. The movement instructions iD for each of the motors M1 to M6 are computed by implementing a kinematic model of the transmissions of the robot arm 4, which defines any couplings or reducing ratios between the different parts of the robot arm 4. The movement instructions iD are sent to each of the motor controllers C1 to C6 that generate the control currents of the motors M1 to M6.).
Regarding claim 2, Bonnet discloses, wherein the communication interface (communication board 12) is configured to extract the instruction identification data from a bit string located at a position of a predetermined index number in the digital data input via the communication interface (see flow chart at fig. 3 and see [0061] disclosing FIG. 3 illustrates the processing protocol for a trajectory order Om developed by the PLC 6. Based on an execution instruction for a trajectory of the control program of the method or application 20, the PLC 6 generates a trajectory order Om that consists of entering the inputs/outputs 22 with the references to the trajectory data to be used in the database 15. These references are: [0062] the index of the desired trajectory in the bank of trajectory points 151, [0063] the index of the movement descriptor to be used in the bank of movement descriptors 152, [0064] the index of the tool to be used in the bank of tools 153.).
Regarding claim 3, Bonnet discloses, wherein the processor (fig. 1: computing unit 11) is configured to generate the plurality of motion instructions using a table associating the instruction identification data and the motion instruction of the plurality of motion instructions with each other (see [0059] showing TABLE 1; and see [0085] showing TABLE 2).
Regarding claim 4, Bonnet discloses, wherein the communication interface (fig. 1: communication board 12) is based on a fieldbus standard (see [0039] disclosing the robot controller 10 is equipped with a communication board 12 by which the robot controller 10 connects both to the fieldbus 5 and an internal PCI bus, not shown, on which a board supporting the computing unit 11 is also connected. [0040] The structure of the exchange zone of the fieldbus 5 is known by the computing unit of the PLC 6 and the robot controller 10, and the fieldbus 5 establishes an exchange protocol that in particular allows an application of the computing unit of the PLC 6 to send trajectory orders.).
Regarding claim 5, Bonnet discloses, further comprising:
a memory (e.g., memory of the robot controller 10 + database 15) storing teaching position data of the robot (automated work cell 2), wherein the processor is configured to, in response to the instruction identification data serving as an instruction indicating a request of the teaching position data, transmit the teaching position data stored in the memory to the controller via the communication interface (fig. 1: communication board 12) (see [0042] disclosing the articulation coordinates or Cartesian coordinates corresponding to the points are stored in a memory of the robot controller 10 that is accessible by the computing unit 11 of the robot controller 10. Owing to this new method, it is not necessary to transfer them to the PLC 6 to be able to execute the operating program of the cell 2. [0043] The points of a trajectory can be stored in the memory of the robot controller 10 during a learning procedure. Using a learning controller, or “teach pendant”, not shown, connected to the robot controller 10, an operator manually moves the robot arm 4 over the definition points of the trajectory and stores those points in the memory of the robot controller 10…. See [0049] disclosing the “TOOLS” table 152 comprises the information relative to the tools used in the applications programmed in the PLC 6. The tables 151, 152 and 153 represent locations of the memory of the robot controller 10. Alternatively, each of the tables 151, 152 and 153 may be programmed in a dedicated memory zone.).
Regarding claim 6, Bonnet discloses, wherein the processor (fig. 1: computing unit 11) is configured to, in response to the instruction identification data indicating a program creation instruction, generate the robot program with empty content to include the plurality of motion instructions in the robot program (see [0061-0064] disclosing [0061] FIG. 3 illustrates the processing protocol for a trajectory order Om developed by the PLC 6. Based on an execution instruction for a trajectory of the control program of the method or application 20, the PLC 6 generates a trajectory order Om that consists of entering the inputs/outputs 22 with the references to the trajectory data to be used in the database 15. These references are: [0062] the index of the desired trajectory in the bank of trajectory points 151, [0063] the index of the movement descriptor to be used in the bank of movement descriptors 152, [0064] the index of the tool to be used in the bank of tools 153.).
Regarding claim 7, Bonnet discloses, wherein the digital data input via the communication interface (fig. 1: communication board 12) further includes position data of the robot (automated work cell 2) (see [0037] disclosing robot controller 10 comprises, for each motor M1 to M6, a respective motor controller C1 to C6 suitable for generating the supply currents in the corresponding phases of the motor M1 to M6 based on the angular position information coming to it from an encoder 8 equipping each motor M1 to M6 and that measures the angular position of that motor and sends it to the motor controller.); and
the processor (fig. 1: computing unit 11) is configured to, based on the instruction identification data and the position data, generate a motion instruction of the plurality of motion instructions (see [0094] disclosing the state of advancement of each commanded movement is observed. Indeed, any elementary movement command corresponding to an elementary movement instruction iME, for example of the “MOVE” type, refers to a movement identifier, for example in the “MotionID” variable. The robot controller 10 can be queried at any moment to determine the state of advancement of a particular movement. For example, in the VAL 3 language, the “GetMotionProgress(MotionID)” function, in which “MotionID” corresponds to the identifier of a precise movement, makes it possible to determine the state of advancement of that movement, in particular in the form of a percentage.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet in view of Kobayashi et al (US 2006/0009878)- “Kobayashi”.
Regarding claim 9, Bonnet discloses substantially the claimed invention as discussed above for claim 8. Bonnet does not expressly teach wherein the controller is configured to acquire, from a robot simulation device connected to the controller via a network, teaching position data used for a motion instruction to move the robot, and transmit, to the robot controller, the digital data including the instruction identification data and the teaching position data corresponding to the motion instruction to move the robot.
However, in the same field of endeavour or analogous art, Kobayashi teaches the claimed features implemented in a programming device connected to a robot operated based on a teaching program. Kobayashi further teaches the claimed features of “wherein the controller is configured to acquire, from a robot simulation device connected to the controller via a network, teaching position data used for a motion instruction to move the robot, and transmit, to the robot controller, the digital data including the instruction identification data and the teaching position data corresponding to the motion instruction to move the robot”. (See at least Abstract disclosing a robot control device is connected to the programming device via a network line. When the robot during operation is stopped by the error, information including data of a position where the robot is stopped is transferred to the programming device. The programming device makes the returning program, based on layout data, the received information and data including teaching positions and attribute data of the positions, by which the robot may be returned from the stop position to the waiting position without interfering with peripheral devices. The returning program is executed by using an offline simulation function of the programming device. The program is transferred to the robot control device after it is judged that interference will not occur.).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bonnet to include the idea of having a simulation device to provide teaching positions of the robot as taught by Kobayashi for the benefit of having capability of performing a simulation of the operation of the robot based on the teaching positions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights