DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 05/07/2025. Claims 1-9 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 2024/087766, filed on 05/30/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Acquisition unit”, “determination unit” and “drive control unit” in claim 1
“Receiving unit”, “determination unit” and “drive control unit” in claim 8
“Acquisition unit” and “transmitting unit” in claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-3, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0256605 (“Ning”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 8 and 9), Ning discloses a robot system comprising (see at least fig 2):
an acquisition unit configured to acquire stop parameter information regarding a stop parameter corresponding to a condition regarding a stop of a predetermined portion on a robot arm when the robot arm is subjected to an emergency stop (see at least fig 3 and fig 5, state acquisition unit, 16, distance acquisition unit, 14);
a determination unit configured to determine whether to subject the robot arm to the emergency stop during an operation of the robot arm (see at least fig 5, state determination unit, 13, see also fig 3 and [0057]); and
a drive control unit configured to execute a stop operation based on the stop parameter information when the determination unit determines to subject the robot arm to the emergency stop (see at least fig 5, drive unit, see also [0034], [0041] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Ning further discloses a robot system wherein the stop parameter information includes information on a deceleration rate K of a speed of the predetermined portion when the robot arm is subjected to the emergency stop (see at least [0047] and [0050]) and information on an allowable braking distance Lmax until the robot arm stops (see at least [0040], where “safe distance”; see also [0051], [0049], [0039] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Ning further discloses a robot system wherein, when the determination unit determines to subject the robot arm to the emergency stop, the drive control unit calculates, using the deceleration rate K, a braking distance La when the robot arm is subjected to the emergency stop (see at least fig 3), and when La > Lmax, the drive control unit subjects the robot arm to the emergency stop using a deceleration rate Ka larger than the deceleration rate K (see at least [0049-50]).
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0256605 (“Ning”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/028488 (“Kobayashi”).
Regarding claim 4, Ning further discloses a robot system wherein the drive control unit repeats an operation of acquiring information on a target position to which the predetermined portion is to be moved next and moving the robot arm based on the acquired information on the target position a plurality of times (see at least fig 3).
Ning does not disclose the following limitation:
the determination unit determines to subject the robot arm to the emergency stop when the drive control unit does not acquire the information on the target position.
However, Kobayashi discloses a robot system wherein the determination unit determines to subject the robot arm to the emergency stop when the drive control unit does not acquire the information on the target position (see at least [0096]).
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 Ning to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi by including the above feature for avoiding unnecessary movement and collision of robot by stopping robot operation when target destination is clear.
Regarding claim 5, Ning further discloses a robot system wherein, when the determination unit determines to subject the robot arm to the emergency stop, the drive control unit moves the robot arm on an extension line of a line segment connecting a target position Pn acquired last and a target position Pn-1 acquired immediately before the target position Pn, n being an integer of 2 or more (see at least fig 7 and [0095]. Target position is related to target time to stop. Integer of 2 or more is a design choice).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0256605 (“Ning”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0070730 (“Morioka”).
Regarding claim 6, Ning further discloses a robot system wherein the robot arm has, as movable regions of the robot arm, a first region and a second region different from the first region (see at least fig 2 and [0036-37]).
Ning does not disclose the following limitation:
the acquisition unit acquires, from the stop parameter information, first stop parameter information regarding the first region and second stop parameter information regarding the second region.
However, Morioka discloses a robot system wherein the acquisition unit acquires, from the stop parameter information, first stop parameter information regarding the first region and second stop parameter information regarding the second region (see at least fig 3).
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 Ning to incorporate the teachings of Morioka by including the above feature for avoiding collision of robot by stopping robot operation when object is determined inside a predetermined range.
Regarding claim 7, Rejection relied on Ning for emergency stop. Morioka further discloses a robot system wherein the drive control unit executes the stop operation based on the first stop parameter information in a case where the determination unit determines to subject the robot arm to the emergency stop when the predetermined portion of the robot arm is located in the first region, and executes the stop operation based on the second stop parameter information in a case where the determination unit determines to subject the robot arm to the emergency stop when the predetermined portion of the robot arm is located in the second region (see at least fig 3).
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