DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-4 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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:
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;
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
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 limitations use 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: “receiving unit configured to receive” in Claim 1; “memory unit storing” in Claim 1; and “control unit configured to control” in Claim 1.
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 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 § 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US Pub. No. 2006/0047361).
As per Claim 1, Sato discloses a collaborative robot system (Figs. 1, 9; ¶43, 99, 144-166) comprising:
a collaborative robot (102) comprising a working robot (112; 12a, 12b) mounted on a movable (via 114; 14) platform (10), wherein the collaborative robot (102) is movable (via 114; 14) with a user (as per “handling subject” in ¶99) to predetermined locations (as per “position history” in ¶189-271 according to operation of movement planning section 113 in ¶146, 154-161) (Figs. 1, 9-10; ¶43, 144-166, 181-271);
a receiving unit (33) configured to receive identification information (as per “performs face recognition processing” in ¶95, as per “iris recognition” in ¶96, as per “using an electronic tag or by using a light beacon” in ¶97) of the user (as per “handling subject” in ¶99) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶79, 87, 93-99);
a memory unit (160) storing (as per “the article handling subject identifying part 33 identifies the article handling subject that handles the article and stores the information of the article handling subject in the article/movable body DB 160” in ¶93) the identification information (as per “performs face recognition processing” in ¶95, as per “iris recognition” in ¶96, as per “using an electronic tag or by using a light beacon” in ¶97) of the user (as per “handling subject” in ¶99) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶79-86, 91-100); and
a control unit (115) configured to control the movable (via 114; 14) platform (10) (Figs. 1, 9; ¶43-44, 144-147, 156), and
wherein the control unit (115) permits the movable (via 114; 14) platform (10) to move (as per “successively executes the robot control commands” in ¶156) in a case where identification information (as per “performs face recognition processing” in ¶95, as per “iris recognition” in ¶96, as per “using an electronic tag or by using a light beacon” in ¶97) received by the receiving unit (33) matches the identification information (as per “performs face recognition processing” in ¶95, as per “iris recognition” in ¶96, as per “using an electronic tag or by using a light beacon” in ¶97) stored in the memory unit (160) (Figs. 1, 4, 9; ¶79-87, 91-100, 144-147, 156).
As per Claim 2, Sato discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Sato further discloses wherein the working robot (112; 12a, 12b) comprises an operation unit (12b) controlled by the control unit (115) (Fig. 9; ¶145-166), and
wherein the control unit (115) permits the operation unit (12b) to operate (as per “successively executes the robot control commands” in ¶156) in the case where identification information (as per “performs face recognition processing” in ¶95, as per “iris recognition” in ¶96, as per “using an electronic tag or by using a light beacon” in ¶97) received by the receiving unit (33) matches the identification information (as per “performs face recognition processing” in ¶95, as per “iris recognition” in ¶96, as per “using an electronic tag or by using a light beacon” in ¶97) stored in the memory unit (160) (Figs. 1, 4, 9; ¶79-87, 91-100, 144-147, 156).
As per Claim 3, Sato discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Sato further discloses wherein the memory unit (160) stores the identification information (as per “performs face recognition processing” in ¶95, as per “iris recognition” in ¶96, as per “using an electronic tag or by using a light beacon” in ¶97) of the user (as per “handling subject” in ¶99) in association with an operating time (as per “TIME” column in Fig. 5) of the operation unit (12b) (Figs. 1, 4-5, 9; ¶79-87, 91-100, 112-121, 126, 144-147, 156).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US Pub. No. 2006/0047361) in view Deyle (US Pub. 2017/0225336).
As per Claim 4, Sato discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Sato further discloses wherein the robot (102) includes a motor-controlled actuator (¶148). Sato does not expressly disclose a solar cell, wherein the solar cell supplies power to at least one of the receiving unit and the control unit.
Deyle discloses a mobile robot (100) that includes a navigation system (710) featuring motors and a power system (712) that includes a power source for providing power to components of the robot (100) including the navigation system (710) (Figs. 1A-C, 7; ¶39-40, 91-94). In one embodiment, the power source is a battery (¶94). In another embodiment, the power source is a solar panel (¶94). Deyle characterizes a battery and a solar panel as suitable sources of power (¶94). Like Sato, Deyle is concerned with mobile robot systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Sato and Deyle, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Deyle to the system of Sato since doing so would enhance the system by providing suitable sources of power for components of the robot as a matter of design choice. Applying the teachings of Deyle to the system of Sato would result in a system that includes “a solar cell, wherein the solar cell supplies power to at least one of the receiving unit and the control unit” in that the system of Sato would be adapted to include a solar cell as per Deyle that provides suitable power for components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Inaba (US Pub. No. 2015/0273704) and Thackston (US Pub. No. 2020/0101614) disclose robot control systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
