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
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.JP2024-177006, filed on 10/09/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” in Fig.2 has been used to designate both robot 3 and control device 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 limitations are:
Acquisition Unit – (first stated in claim 1)
Extraction Unit – (first stated in claim 1)
Reflection Unit – (first stated in claim 1)
Control Unit – (first stated in claim 7)
Applicant’s specification discloses on page 7 lines 11-12 “The control device 4 includes, for example, an acquisition unit 41, an extraction unit 42, a reflection unit 43, a control unit 44, and a storage unit 45.”. Examiner submits that for examination purposes the listed limitations will be interpreted as functions of a Processor/CPU or the like.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "a control device" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2-5, Claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 4, Claim 4 recites “wherein the reflection unit reflects geometric information after the sensor is attached to the main body according to a position where the sensor is attached in geometric information before the sensor is attached to the main body”. Examiner submits as currently written the claim is unclear and indefinite. Examiner further submits, the examiner is unable to ascertain the scope of the claim as currently presented specifically in regard to “according to a position where the sensor is attached in geometric information before the sensor is attached to the main body”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited. Examiner notes for examination purposes the claim will interpret the claim as “wherein the reflection unit reflects geometric information after the sensor is attached to the main body”.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2021/0229283 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a control device comprising: an attachment portion where a sensor is attached to a main body controlled by a control device [(see at least paragraph 17) “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the abnormality determination system 100 according to the embodiment is configured with a robot 1, a robot control device 2, the abnormality determination apparatus 3, and a production management device 4. The robot 1 is described as an example of work equipment provided with an attaching part to which a plural kinds of work parts are attached in a replaceable manner. For example, the robot 1 is a teaching-playback-type multiaxis machine and is of a multijoint type. However, the robot 1 may not be a multiaxis machine but may be a single axis machine.”]; an acquisition unit configured to acquire position information of a position to which the attachment portion is attached and sensor identification information of the sensor attached to the attachment portion [(see at least paragraphs 18,25) As in 18 “The motor 6 is provided with a pulse coder (a pulse generator or an encoder) 7 that is a detector for a rotation angle position and velocity. At a front end of the robot arm 5, there is arranged a changer C for attaching a tool T. The changer C functions as an attaching part to which a plural kinds of tools T are attached in a replaceable manner. The tool T is a work part that is attached to the front end of the robot arm 5 and performs an actual work. ” As in 25 “The data acquisition unit 16 acquires state data from the robot 1 through the communication unit 15. In particular, the data acquisition unit 16 acquires, as the state data, various kinds of data collected by the state data acquisition unit 13 of the robot control device 2 and indicating operating states of the robot 1, as well as the disturbance torque value calculated by the disturbance torque calculation unit 12. Then, the data acquisition unit records the acquired state data in the database 20 according to the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17.”] an extraction unit configured to extract sensor specification information based on the sensor identification information from a sensor specification database that stores specification information of the sensor [(see at least paragraph 26) “The work part identification unit 17 identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. More precisely, the work part identification unit 17 acquires, from the maintenance record database 21, a maintenance record recorded at the time when the tool T was attached, and according to the acquired maintenance record, identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. For example, if a date and time when the tool T was changed from T1 to T2 is recorded in the maintenance record, it is identified that the kind of the tool T is T1 before the date and time and that the kind of the tool T is T2 after the date and time.”]; and a reflection unit configured to reflect the sensor specification information and the position information of the position to which the sensor is attached into control parameters. [(see at least paragraphs 25-27) As in 27 “The abnormality determination data setting unit 18 sets, based on the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17, abnormality determination data for determining an abnormality of the robot 1. In particular, the abnormality determination data setting unit 18 calculates a threshold value from state data of the tool T of the identified kind identified by the work part identification unit 17 and sets the calculated threshold value as abnormality determination data”]
Examiner notes Kobayashi discloses the use/identification and the changing of one tool for another different tool in order to execute various functions and to accurately monitor any abnormalities within the system. Kobayashi doesn’t disclose this process involving changing/switching a sensor for a different sensor, however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kobayashi to incorporate the method/process as disclosed by Kobayashi of the use/identification and the changing of one tool for another different tool to execute various functions and substitute the changing of one sensor for another sensor in order to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143). Examiner further submits that this rationale applies to the corresponding dependent claims.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches wherein a sensor attachment connector is installed in the main body, the sensor attachment connector is assigned a unique communication identification information, and the acquisition unit acquires position information from a position of the sensor attachment connector linked to the unique communication identification information. [(see at least paragraphs 18, 26) As in 18 “Although the robot 1 has a plurality of motor driving systems as joint axes or motion axes, FIG. 1 illustrates a motor driving system for one axis. A robot arm 5 is driven through a reduction gear 8 by a servomotor (hereunder simply mentioned as a motor) 6. The motor 6 is provided with a pulse coder (a pulse generator or an encoder) 7 that is a detector for a rotation angle position and velocity. At a front end of the robot arm 5, there is arranged a changer C for attaching a tool T. The changer C functions as an attaching part to which a plural kinds of tools T are attached in a replaceable manner.” As in 26 “The work part identification unit 17 identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. More precisely, the work part identification unit 17 acquires, from the maintenance record database 21, a maintenance record recorded at the time when the tool T was attached, and according to the acquired maintenance record, identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. For example, if a date and time when the tool T was changed from T1 to T2 is recorded in the maintenance record, it is identified that the kind of the tool T is T1 before the date and time and that the kind of the tool T is T2 after the date and time.”]
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi teaches wherein specification information of the sensor includes geometric information of the sensor. [(see at least paragraph 68) “The work part detection unit 70 functions as a sensor to detect the kind of a tool T attached to the changer C of the robot 1. The work part detection unit 70 detects the kind of the tool T based on a structure of the tool T attached to the changer C. For example, it detects the kind of the tool T from a mechanical connection such as the shape of an attachment forming the changer C.”]
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches wherein the reflection unit reflects geometric information after the sensor is attached to the main body according to a position where the sensor is attached in geometric information before the sensor is attached to the main body. [(see at least paragraph 68) “The work part detection unit 70 functions as a sensor to detect the kind of a tool T attached to the changer C of the robot 1. The work part detection unit 70 detects the kind of the tool T based on a structure of the tool T attached to the changer C. For example, it detects the kind of the tool T from a mechanical connection such as the shape of an attachment forming the changer C.”]
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi teaches wherein the attachment portion has a determined reference position in the main body, the sensor has a determined reference position in the sensor, and a detection position of the sensor is defined as a relative coordinate from the reference position of the sensor. [(see at least paragraphs 68-69) As in 68 “The work part detection unit 70 functions as a sensor to detect the kind of a tool T attached to the changer C of the robot 1. The work part detection unit 70 detects the kind of the tool T based on a structure of the tool T attached to the changer C. For example, it detects the kind of the tool T from a mechanical connection such as the shape of an attachment forming the changer C.”]
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi teaches a control system comprising: a control device; a sensor attached to a main body controlled by the control device [(see at least paragraph 17) “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the abnormality determination system 100 according to the embodiment is configured with a robot 1, a robot control device 2, the abnormality determination apparatus 3, and a production management device 4. The robot 1 is described as an example of work equipment provided with an attaching part to which a plural kinds of work parts are attached in a replaceable manner. For example, the robot 1 is a teaching-playback-type multiaxis machine and is of a multijoint type. However, the robot 1 may not be a multiaxis machine but may be a single axis machine.”]; and a database configured to store specification information including geometric information of the sensor [(see at least paragraph 25) “Then, the data acquisition unit records the acquired state data in the database 20 according to the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17.”], wherein the control device includes an attachment portion where the sensor is attached to the main body [(see at least paragraph 18) “At a front end of the robot arm 5, there is arranged a changer C for attaching a tool T. The changer C functions as an attaching part to which a plural kinds of tools T are attached in a replaceable manner.”], an acquisition unit configured to acquire position information of a position to which the attachment portion is attached and sensor identification information of the sensor attached to the attachment portion [(see at least paragraphs 18,25) As in 18 “The motor 6 is provided with a pulse coder (a pulse generator or an encoder) 7 that is a detector for a rotation angle position and velocity. At a front end of the robot arm 5, there is arranged a changer C for attaching a tool T. The changer C functions as an attaching part to which a plural kinds of tools T are attached in a replaceable manner. The tool T is a work part that is attached to the front end of the robot arm 5 and performs an actual work. ” As in 25 “The data acquisition unit 16 acquires state data from the robot 1 through the communication unit 15. In particular, the data acquisition unit 16 acquires, as the state data, various kinds of data collected by the state data acquisition unit 13 of the robot control device 2 and indicating operating states of the robot 1, as well as the disturbance torque value calculated by the disturbance torque calculation unit 12. Then, the data acquisition unit records the acquired state data in the database 20 according to the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17.”], an extraction unit configured to extract sensor specification information based on sensor identification information from a sensor specification database that stores specification information of the sensor [(see at least paragraph 26) “The work part identification unit 17 identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. More precisely, the work part identification unit 17 acquires, from the maintenance record database 21, a maintenance record recorded at the time when the tool T was attached, and according to the acquired maintenance record, identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. For example, if a date and time when the tool T was changed from T1 to T2 is recorded in the maintenance record, it is identified that the kind of the tool T is T1 before the date and time and that the kind of the tool T is T2 after the date and time.”], and a reflection unit configured to reflect the sensor specification information and the position information of the position to which the sensor is attached into control parameters. [(see at least paragraphs 25-27) As in 27 “The abnormality determination data setting unit 18 sets, based on the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17, abnormality determination data for determining an abnormality of the robot 1. In particular, the abnormality determination data setting unit 18 calculates a threshold value from state data of the tool T of the identified kind identified by the work part identification unit 17 and sets the calculated threshold value as abnormality determination data”]
Examiner notes Kobayashi discloses the use/identification and the changing of one tool for another different tool in order to execute various functions and to accurately monitor any abnormalities within the system. Kobayashi doesn’t disclose this process involving changing/switching a sensor for a different sensor, however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kobayashi to incorporate the method/process as disclosed by Kobayashi of the use/identification and the changing of one tool for another different tool to execute various functions and substitute the changing of one sensor for another sensor in order to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143). Examiner further submits that this rationale applies to the corresponding dependent claims.
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi teaches a control method that controls a control device including an attachment portion where a sensor is attached to a main body controlled by the control device [(see at least paragraph 17) “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the abnormality determination system 100 according to the embodiment is configured with a robot 1, a robot control device 2, the abnormality determination apparatus 3, and a production management device 4. The robot 1 is described as an example of work equipment provided with an attaching part to which a plural kinds of work parts are attached in a replaceable manner. For example, the robot 1 is a teaching-playback-type multiaxis machine and is of a multijoint type. However, the robot 1 may not be a multiaxis machine but may be a single axis machine.”], comprising: acquiring, by an acquisition unit, position information of a position to which the attachment portion is attached and sensor identification information of the sensor attached to the attachment portion [(see at least paragraphs 18,25) As in 18 “The motor 6 is provided with a pulse coder (a pulse generator or an encoder) 7 that is a detector for a rotation angle position and velocity. At a front end of the robot arm 5, there is arranged a changer C for attaching a tool T. The changer C functions as an attaching part to which a plural kinds of tools T are attached in a replaceable manner. The tool T is a work part that is attached to the front end of the robot arm 5 and performs an actual work. ” As in 25 “The data acquisition unit 16 acquires state data from the robot 1 through the communication unit 15. In particular, the data acquisition unit 16 acquires, as the state data, various kinds of data collected by the state data acquisition unit 13 of the robot control device 2 and indicating operating states of the robot 1, as well as the disturbance torque value calculated by the disturbance torque calculation unit 12. Then, the data acquisition unit records the acquired state data in the database 20 according to the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17.”], extracting, by an extraction unit, sensor specification information based on sensor identification information from a sensor specification database that stores specification information of the sensor [(see at least paragraph 26) “The work part identification unit 17 identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. More precisely, the work part identification unit 17 acquires, from the maintenance record database 21, a maintenance record recorded at the time when the tool T was attached, and according to the acquired maintenance record, identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. For example, if a date and time when the tool T was changed from T1 to T2 is recorded in the maintenance record, it is identified that the kind of the tool T is T1 before the date and time and that the kind of the tool T is T2 after the date and time.”], and reflecting, by a reflection unit, the sensor specification information and the position information of the position to which the sensor is attached into control parameters. [(see at least paragraphs 25-27) As in 27 “The abnormality determination data setting unit 18 sets, based on the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17, abnormality determination data for determining an abnormality of the robot 1. In particular, the abnormality determination data setting unit 18 calculates a threshold value from state data of the tool T of the identified kind identified by the work part identification unit 17 and sets the calculated threshold value as abnormality determination data”]
Examiner notes Kobayashi discloses the use/identification and the changing of one tool for another different tool in order to execute various functions and to accurately monitor any abnormalities within the system. Kobayashi doesn’t disclose this process involving changing/switching a sensor for a different sensor, however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kobayashi to incorporate the method/process as disclosed by Kobayashi of the use/identification and the changing of one tool for another different tool to execute various functions and substitute the changing of one sensor for another sensor in order to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium that has stored a program causing a computer of a control device including an attachment portion where a sensor is attached to a main body controlled by the control device [(see at least paragraphs 17,20) As in 17 “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the abnormality determination system 100 according to the embodiment is configured with a robot 1, a robot control device 2, the abnormality determination apparatus 3, and a production management device 4. The robot 1 is described as an example of work equipment provided with an attaching part to which a plural kinds of work parts are attached in a replaceable manner. For example, the robot 1 is a teaching-playback-type multiaxis machine and is of a multijoint type. However, the robot 1 may not be a multiaxis machine but may be a single axis machine.” As in 20 “The servo control unit 11 is provided with, other than the disturbance torque calculation unit 12 and state data acquisition unit 13, a processor for carrying out a process for controlling the rotation angle position, velocity, and current of the motor 6, a ROM for storing a control program, and a nonvolatile memory unit for storing set values and various kinds of parameters. Also, the servo control unit 11 is provided with a RAM for temporarily storing data during an operation process”] to execute: acquiring position information of a position to which the attachment portion is attached and sensor identification information of the sensor attached to the attachment portion [(see at least paragraphs 18,25) As in 18 “The motor 6 is provided with a pulse coder (a pulse generator or an encoder) 7 that is a detector for a rotation angle position and velocity. At a front end of the robot arm 5, there is arranged a changer C for attaching a tool T. The changer C functions as an attaching part to which a plural kinds of tools T are attached in a replaceable manner. The tool T is a work part that is attached to the front end of the robot arm 5 and performs an actual work. ” As in 25 “The data acquisition unit 16 acquires state data from the robot 1 through the communication unit 15. In particular, the data acquisition unit 16 acquires, as the state data, various kinds of data collected by the state data acquisition unit 13 of the robot control device 2 and indicating operating states of the robot 1, as well as the disturbance torque value calculated by the disturbance torque calculation unit 12. Then, the data acquisition unit records the acquired state data in the database 20 according to the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17.”], extracting sensor specification information based on sensor identification information from a sensor specification database that stores specification information of the sensor [(see at least paragraph 26) “The work part identification unit 17 identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. More precisely, the work part identification unit 17 acquires, from the maintenance record database 21, a maintenance record recorded at the time when the tool T was attached, and according to the acquired maintenance record, identifies the kind of the tool T attached to the changer C. For example, if a date and time when the tool T was changed from T1 to T2 is recorded in the maintenance record, it is identified that the kind of the tool T is T1 before the date and time and that the kind of the tool T is T2 after the date and time.”], and reflecting the sensor specification information and the position information of the position to which the sensor is attached into control parameters. [(see at least paragraphs 25-27) As in 27 “The abnormality determination data setting unit 18 sets, based on the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17, abnormality determination data for determining an abnormality of the robot 1. In particular, the abnormality determination data setting unit 18 calculates a threshold value from state data of the tool T of the identified kind identified by the work part identification unit 17 and sets the calculated threshold value as abnormality determination data”]
Examiner notes Kobayashi discloses the use/identification and the changing of one tool for another different tool in order to execute various functions and to accurately monitor any abnormalities within the system. Kobayashi doesn’t disclose this process involving changing/switching a sensor for a different sensor, however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kobayashi to incorporate the method/process as disclosed by Kobayashi of the use/identification and the changing of one tool for another different tool to execute various functions and substitute the changing of one sensor for another sensor in order to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Hwang (US 2021/0394360 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi teaches wherein the main body is a robot including fingers, and the control device includes a control unit that uses a reflected control parameter and a detection value acquired from the sensor to control an operation of a part of the main body to which the sensor is attached. [(see at least paragraphs 24-27) As in 25 “The data acquisition unit 16 acquires state data from the robot 1 through the communication unit 15. In particular, the data acquisition unit 16 acquires, as the state data, various kinds of data collected by the state data acquisition unit 13 of the robot control device 2 and indicating operating states of the robot 1, as well as the disturbance torque value calculated by the disturbance torque calculation unit 12. Then, the data acquisition unit records the acquired state data in the database 20 according to the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17” As in 27 “As in 27 “The abnormality determination data setting unit 18 sets, based on the kind of the tool T identified by the work part identification unit 17, abnormality determination data for determining an abnormality of the robot 1. In particular, the abnormality determination data setting unit 18 calculates a threshold value from state data of the tool T of the identified kind identified by the work part identification unit 17 and sets the calculated threshold value as abnormality determination data”]
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach wherein the main body is a robot including fingers.
However, Hwang teaches wherein the main body is a robot including fingers [(see at least Fig.1, paragraph 6) “the present disclosure is directed to provide a technology for a tactile sensor module that may be easily mounted and used throughout the robot industry where precise tasks requiring tactile feedback of a terminal of an end-effector in an industrial robot to which a gripper and a tool are attached to perform a predetermined task, a robot-hand of a humanoid robot or a prosthetic hand, which mimics human hand movements are performed, by modulating all components necessary for controlling a force sensor and processing measured information in a tactile sensor module.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kobayashi to incorporate the teachings of Hwang of wherein the main body is a robot including fingers in order to perform a grasping motion applying an accurate grasping force and minimizing deformation of the object. [(Hwang 3)]
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2020/0398446 A1) Wang - Environment Monitoring And Associated Monitoring Device
(US 2021/0370514 A1) Beardsworth - AUTOMATED SAFETY PROCEDURES FOR HUMAN INTERVENTION IN ROBOT SYSTEMS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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 at 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 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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
