DETAILED ACTION
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 5 and 8-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 5, it is indeterminate as to what the limitation “predetermined number” is modifying or quantifying which renders the claim indefinite. The claim is not further treated on the merits.
Dependent claims 8-9 are also rejected under the same rationale by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 14, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saganuma (machine translation of JP2012011498A).
As per claims 1 and 33, Saganuma discloses a robot system comprising:
a robot (robot arm 2); and
a controller that controls the robot (robot controller 3),
wherein the controller when a user is moving a predetermined part of the robot or moving the predetermined part with a terminal device, notifies the user that the predetermined part is moving from a first position to a second position (see at least para. 20 for remote control unit 1; see at least para. 39 for providing a warning when the robot arm is equal to or less than a certain distance, wherein a position outside the certain distance corresponds to the first position and a position within the certain distance corresponds to the second position).
As per claim 11, Saganuma further discloses wherein the controller notifies the user by light that the predetermined part is moving from the first position to the second position (see at least para. 39 for warning lamp).
As per claim 14, Saganuma further discloses wherein the controller notifies the user by sound that the predetermined part is moving from the first position to the second position (see at least para. 39 for warning sound).
As per claim 29, Saganuma further discloses wherein the controller limits directions in which the user moves the predetermined part (see at least para. 47 for preventing interference with an obstacle using repulsive force vector field).
As per claim 30, Saganuma further discloses an operating device enabling the robot to be operated by input from the user, wherein the controller notifies the user by the operating device that the predetermined part is moving from the first position to the second position (see at least para. 44 for force feedback at remote control unit 1).
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.
Claim(s) 13, 16, 22, 24-26, 34-35, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saganuma (machine translation of JP2012011498A) in view of Mimura (US 2021/0252713).
As per claim 13, Saganuma is silent regarding, but Mimura teaches wherein the controller displays, on a display portion, a screen for setting information related to the notification of light (see at least para. 459 for selecting target objects on screen and setting distance threshold for warning when distance between objects is less than said threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Mimura to provide adjustability of the distance warning threshold such that the operator may provide a setting according to their preference.
As per claim 16, Saganuma is silent regarding, but Mimura teaches wherein the controller displays, on a display portion, a screen for setting information related to the notification of sound (see at least para. 459 for selecting target objects on screen and setting distance threshold for warning when distance between objects is less than said threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Mimura to provide adjustability of the distance warning threshold such that the operator may provide a setting according to their preference.
As per claim 22, Saganuma is silent regarding, but Mimura teaches wherein the controller displays, on a display portion, a screen for setting an interval between the first position and the second position (see at least para. 459 for selecting target objects on screen and setting distance threshold for warning when distance between objects is less than said threshold, wherein selecting the target object corresponds to setting the interval between the target object position and the current position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Mimura to enable the operator to select which target objects they are interested in setting a threshold distance for warning when collision is likely.
As per claim 24, Saganuma is silent regarding, but Mimura teaches wherein the predetermined part is a part that moves in a three-dimensional space where the robot is placed, and the first position and the second position are coordinates virtually set on at least one axis of the space (see at least para. 458 and 459 for calculating distance between a current position of the robot, specifically part 403, and the target object using images which implies a coordinate system for use within images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Mimura to set the position of a target object within an image in order to determine the distance from the current position of the robot for the purpose of setting a distance threshold to provide a collision warning.
As per claim 25, Mimura further teaches wherein the controller notifies the user when the predetermined part has moved between the coordinates (see at least para. 459 for selecting target objects on screen and setting distance threshold for warning when distance between objects is less than said threshold).
As per claim 26, Saganuma is silent regarding, but Mimura teaches wherein the predetermined part is a part that moves by a joint of the robot, and the first position and the second position are coordinates virtually set in a moving range of the joint (see at least para. 458 and 459 for calculating distance between a current position of the robot, specifically part 403, and the target object using images which implies a coordinate system for use within images; see at least Fig. 31 for part moved by plurality of robot links/joints; setting collision warning for a target object implies that there is potential for collision and is therefore within the moving range of the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Mimura to set the position of a target object within an image in order to determine the distance from the current position of the robot for the purpose of setting a distance threshold to provide a collision warning.
As per claims 34, 35, and 37, Saganuma discloses an information processing apparatus that sets information related to a robot system including a robot (robot arm 2) and a controller that controls the robot (robot controller 3), wherein the controller when a user is moving a predetermined part of the robot or moving the predetermined part with a terminal device, notifies the user that the predetermined part is moving from a first position to a second position (see at least para. 20 for remote control unit 1; see at least para. 39 for providing a warning when the robot arm is equal to or less than a certain distance, wherein a position outside the certain distance corresponds to the first position and a position within the certain distance corresponds to the second position).
Saganuma is silent regarding, but Mimura teaches wherein the controller displays, on a display portion, a screen for setting information related to the notification (see at least para. 459 for selecting target objects on screen and setting distance threshold for warning when distance between objects is less than said threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Mimura to provide adjustability of the distance warning threshold such that the operator may provide a setting according to their preference.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saganuma (machine translation of JP2012011498A) in view of Miyakawa (US 2024/0046401).
As per claim 17, Saganuma is silent regarding, but Miyakawa teaches wherein the controller notifies the user by numerical display that the predetermined part is moving from the first position to the second position (see at least para. 113 for displaying distance to object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Miyaka to provide a more precise and discrete warning of how close the robot is to an object compared to a warning light or warning sound.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saganuma (machine translation of JP2012011498A) in view of Meglan (US 2022/0160445).
As per claim 19, Saganuma teaches relaying reaction force back to the remote control unit (see at least para. 44 for force feedback).
Saganuma teaches wherein the controller notifies the user by vibration that the predetermined part is moving from the first position to the second position (see at least para. 44 for force feedback).
Saganuma is not explicit regarding the force feedback being a vibration, but Meglan teaches haptic and/or vibration feedback to alert the operator of an impending collision with another object (see at least para. 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Meglan because haptic feedback provides a vibration which is immediately interpreted by the operator as danger compared to just force feedback which is just a force against the operator which could be mistaken for friction or a mechanical limit of the controller.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saganuma (machine translation of JP2012011498A) in view of Meglan (US 2022/0160445) and further in view of Mimura (US 2021/0252713).
As per claim 21, modified Saganuma is silent regarding, but Mimura teaches wherein the controller displays, on a display portion, a screen for setting information related to the notification (see at least para. 459 for selecting target objects on screen and setting distance threshold for warning when distance between objects is less than said threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Saganuma with the features of Mimura to provide adjustability of the distance warning threshold such that the operator may provide a setting according to their preference. The combination would thus result in setting information related to the notification of vibration.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saganuma (machine translation of JP2012011498A) in view of Lan (machine translation of CN21141518).
As per claim 23, Saganuma is silent regarding, but Lan teaches wherein displays, on a display portion, a screen for setting a mode to notify the user (see at least pg. 2, ln. 35-39, for turning on or off the alarm voice or light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Lan to allow the operator to enable or disable a plurality of alarm modes to accommodate their preference.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saganuma (machine translation of JP2012011498A) in view of Yoshida (US 2020/0101599).
As per claim 31, Saganuma further discloses wherein a virtual robot that allows the user to be operated is displayed (see at least para. 40 for display unit 11 displaying model of robot arm 2).
Saganuma is silent regarding, but Yoshida teaches the display being on a display portion of the operating device (see at least para. 27 for a mobile terminal displaying a virtual model that can be manipulated by the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Saganuma with the features of Yoshida to combine the control device with a display to have a single device for viewing as it reduces the number of devices required and may be more intuitive to operate.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saganuma (machine translation of JP2012011498A).
As per claim 32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the robot system of Saganuma in claim 1 to manufacture an article, such as assembling a product, since the claim has not provided any specific steps other than using said robot system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 8-9 are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but need to be rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art is regarded to be JP2012011498A which teaches a repulsion force at the second position but not an attraction or repulsion force at both the first position and second position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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 at (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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights