DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 11/3/25.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 4/25/24, 7/18/24, 1/23/25 and 6/3/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Reeksman et al. US PGPub 2018/0348730 hereinafter REEKSMAN on claims 1, 4-14 are maintained. The rejection is amended below to meet the added claim limitations.
As for claim 1 , REEKSMAN teaches "A method may involve determining task information of a path-based task by an end-effector on an object, where the task information includes (i) at least one task parameter, and (ii) a nominal representation of the object" ( abstract, lines 1-6), i.e. a method.
REEKSMAN teaches "Additionally and/or alternatively, the controller 308 can determine for the applicator 402 a tool path to follow so that the applicator 402 can deposit the adhesive according to the parametric deposition pattern 412. In particular, the controller 308 can use characteristics of the robotic device 200, such as kinematic constraints (e.g., collision, joint limits, etc.) and/or freedoms, to determine the toolpath that the end-effector can follow in order to deposit adhesive in the deposition pattern 412A" (paragraph 84, lines 1-9) and the deposition pattern can be determined by any parameter relating to the deposited material (paragraph 82) i.e. dispensing, by a robot within a manufacturing environment using at least one process parameter, one or more ... beads.
REEKSMAN further argues that "Then, the system can generate a deposition pattern that achieves a desired result indicated by the model" (paragraph 91 ), i.e. wherein the pattern produced is result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the shape of the bead, i.e. a linear vs non-linear bead, such that the coverage of the adhesive and adhesive strength (paragraph 80) is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
REEKSMAN further teaches "At runtime, the controller 306 can scan the object 500 in order to determine any deviations from the model. In response to detecting a deviation, the controller 306 can update the one or more control parameters in order to generate a deposition pattern that accounts for the deviation." (paragraph 94; see entire paragraph for a listing of the parameters that can be used for producing deposition pattern), i.e. measuring, via a one-dimensional scan by a measuring device positioned within the manufacturing environment, at a plurality of positions along the longitudinal axis of the adhesive beads, at least one character of a bead shape ... dispensing the liquid adhesive using the target complex dispense path ... and the at last one of the adjusted process parameter.
REEKSMAN further teaches "Once the controller 308 has analyzed the parametric model output product, the controller 308 could then generate tasks that could be performed in order to build and/or modify the output product" (paragraph 73, lines 1-4), and also teaches "If the control system detects any deviations, the control system may update the parametric instructions to account for the deviations. In particular, since the toolpath is described parametrically, the control system may rapidly update the instructions to account for the deviations such that the updated instructions satisfy the task parameters. The flexibility afforded to the system to adjust the parametric instructions, as opposed to predetermined positional instructions, allows the system to account for any deviations or changes in the production site. It also allows the system to rapidly account for any deviations without significant delays in the production process" (paragraph 104) i.e. adjusting, by a processor of the measuring device, the at least one process parameter based on one or more response surface profiles and the at least one characteristic measured of the bead shape.
REEKSMAN further teaches "In an embodiment, the controller 308 can generate instructions for the robotic device 200 to perform the adhesion application task. In particular, the instructions can be based on a parametric model 400A of the tile, which is illustrated in FIG. 4A. The parametric model 400A may be part of a larger parametric model of the output product. Further, the parametric model 400A can describe a desired parameter of the deposition. In an implementation, the system can analyze the parametric model in order to determine the parameter. By way of example, the parametric model indicates that two distinct pieces are joined together in the product. Accordingly, the system can determine that two pieces can be coupled together using an adhesive. Then, the system can determine the parameter that describes the desired deposition. For instance, the parameter can be a desired deposition coverage area on a surface 404A of the tile. The desired deposition coverage area can include specific areas to be covered on the surf ace 41 0A of the tile or can be defined as a percentage of an area on a surface of the tile to be covered (e.g., 20% of a surface to be covered). In another example, the desired parameter of the deposition can be a uniformity of deposition, a desired strength, or a desired pulling area" (paragraph 80).
REEKSMAN also teaches “For instance, the parametric toolpath can be defined as a function of a position (e.g., distance and/or orientation) relative to one or more features of the modeled object” (paragraph 26, lines 16-18), i.e. wherein the parameter is a single dimension parameter.
REEKSMAN further teaches "Based on the one or more parameters, the controller 308 can determine an adhesive deposition pattern to be deposited on the surface 41 A of the tile. In particular, the adhesive deposition pattern is determined such that the pattern satisfies the desired parameter (e.g., deposition coverage area) indicated by the parametric model 400A. Within examples, the system can use one or more characteristics of the tile and/or one more characteristics of the worksite to determine the adhesive deposition pattern that satisfies the one or more parameters. The one or more object characteristics can be determined from the parametric model 400A of the tile and/or sensor data (e.g., data from local sensors and/or global sensors)" (paragraph81) and "Additionally and/or alternatively, the controller 308 can determine for the applicator 402 a toolpath to follow so that the applicator 402 can deposit the adhesive according to the parametric deposition pattern 412" (paragraph 84, lines 1 -3), i.e. wherein the toolpath shape (one-dimensional (1 D) path, a two-dimensional (2D) path and a three-dimension (3D) path)) is chosen based on the desired pattern to be applied to the substrate.
It is well within the skill of the ordinary artisan to design the response profile/parametric model to use single dimension parameters to generate a two or three dimensional design (i.e. 'the response surface profiles is based on a linear model relating the at least one process parameter and the at least one characteristic of the bead shape at the bead shape at each discrete position of the plurality of discrete positions without a relation to adjacent discrete positions of the plurality of discrete positions along the continuous') because REEKSMAN specifically teaches using mathematical models as a means to evaluate the measured parameters/characteristics/variables of the process and make adjustments to the deposition of the adhesive material and suggests designing those models to generate the desired pattern. A person of ordinary skill in the art is more than capable of following REEKSMAN's teachings and picking the variables and generating the parametric models to produce the desired results. Based on REEKSMAN's teachings, this appears to be routine optimization. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 4, REEKMAN teaches "The designs 164 may also be indicative of how a physical structure of the output product will be configured and how it will perform once constructed by the robotic device 110. As such, and as explained below, the controller 150 may use the designs 164 as a guide to generate instructions for the robotic device 110. The instructions may be indicative of specific robotic actions that can be performed by the robotic device 110 to construct a portion of or the entire output product" (paragraph 47; see further paragraphs 48 and 49) and further teaches "Based on the one or more parameters, the controller 308 can determine an adhesive deposition pattern to be deposited on the surface 41 0A of the tile. In particular, the adhesive deposition pattern is determined such that the pattern satisfies the desired parameter (e.g., deposition coverage area) indicated by the parametric model 400A. Within examples, the system can use one or more characteristics of the tile and/or one more characteristics of the worksite to determine the adhesive deposition pattern that satisfies the one or more parameters" (paragraph 81, lines 1-10) i.e. wherein the placement of the portions is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the placement of the discrete portions of adhesive such that the desired structure of the output product with the desired properties is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 5, REEKMAN teaches "The designs 164 may also be indicative of how a physical structure of the output product will be configured and how it will perform once constructed by the robotic device 110. As such, and as explained below, the controller 150 may use the designs 164 as a guide to generate instructions for the robotic device 110. The instructions may be indicative of specific robotic actions that can be performed by the robotic device 110 to construct a portion of or the entire output product" (paragraph 47; see further paragraphs 48 and 49), and further teaches "Based on the one or more parameters, the controller 308 can determine an adhesive deposition pattern to be deposited on the surface 41 0A of the tile. In particular, the adhesive deposition pattern is determined such that the pattern satisfies the desired parameter (e.g., deposition coverage area) indicated by the parametric model 400A. Within examples, the system can use one or more characteristics of the tile and/or one more characteristics of the worksite to determine the adhesive deposition pattern that satisfies the one or more parameters" (paragraph 81, lines 1-10) i.e. wherein the placement of the portions is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the distance between the discrete portions of adhesive such that the desired structure of the output product with the desired properties is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 6, REEKMAN teaches "Based on the one or more parameters, the controller 308 can determine an adhesive deposition pattern to be deposited on the surface 41 0A of the tile. In particular, the adhesive deposition pattern is determined such that the pattern satisfies the desired parameter (e.g., deposition coverage area) indicated by the parametric model 400A. Within examples, the system can use one or more characteristics of the tile and/or one more characteristics of the worksite to determine the adhesive deposition pattern that satisfies the one or more parameters. The one or more object characteristics can be determined from the parametric model 400A of the tile and/or sensor data (e.g., data from local sensors and/or global sensors). Examples of relevant object characteristics for the adhesive application task may include dimensions of the target object, material of the target object, potential tension stress, compression stress, and/or strain of the target object, potential impact and vibration forces that the target object may experience, potential fatigue, potential contact with other chemicals, etc. And examples of relevant worksite characteristics include temperature, humidity, air pressure, UV exposure, etc" (paragraph 81, emphasis added), i.e. wherein the one or more response surface profiles are further based on at least one uncontrolled process parameter comprises ... ambient temperature, ambient humidity or ambient pressure.
As for claim 7, REEKMAN teaches "The instructions may cause the robotic arm to move the end-effector to deposit the adhesive onto the surface in a desired pattern" (paragraph 23, lines 7-9).
REEKMAN teaches "Operations relating to the robotic control system described above may be implemented as a method by one or more processors" (paragraph 105, lines 1-3) and "As shown in block 706, the method 700 further involves generating, based on sensor data, an observed representation of the object. As illustrated by block 708, the method 700 further involves comparing the observed and the nominal representations of the object. As illustrated by block 710, the method 700 yet further involves based on the comparison, mapping the one or more parametric instructions to the observed representation of the object. In some examples, the one or more parametric instructions can be updated in real-time. As shown by block 712, the method 700 additionally involves sending the mapped instructions to the end-effector to cause the robotic device to perform the path-based task" (paragraph 107), i.e. wherein adjusting the at least one process parameter comprises: accessing, with the processor of the measuring device, the one or more response surface profiles of the liquid adhesive defining a reference bead shape of a reference bead of the liquid adhesive and at least one reference process parameter; comparing, by the processor, the bead shape to the reference bead shape; and responsive to determining the bead shape is different than the reference bead shape, determining, by the processor, based on the at least one reference process parameter, the at least one of adjusted process parameter.
As for claim 8, REEKMAN teaches "Additionally, the local sensor(s) 130 and global sensor(s) 140 may be positioned within or in the vicinity of the worksite, among other possible locations. For example, the local sensor(s) 130 may be attached to the robotic device 110. In some embodiments, the global sensor(s) 140 may be arranged in fixed locations throughout the worksite, for example, as a dedicated sensing installation. Further, an example implementation may also use sensors incorporated within existing devices, such as mobile phones, laptops, and/or tablets. These devices may be in possession of workers located in the production site, such as construction workers in a construction site" (paragraph 40), i.e. wherein the measuring device comprises a portable measuring device wherein the sensors are incorporated into existing devices such as mobile phones.
As for claim 9, "REEKMAN teaches "Operations relating to the robotic control system described above may be implemented as a method by one or more processors" (paragraph 105, lines 1-3), and "If the control system detects any deviations, the control system may update the parametric instructions to account for the deviations. In particular, since the toolpath is described parametrically, the control system may rapidly update the instructions to account for the deviations such that the updated instructions satisfy the task parameters. The flexibility afforded to the system to adjust the parametric instructions, as opposed to predetermined positional instructions, allows the system to account for any deviations or changes in the production site" (paragraph 104), i.e. wherein the dispensing the one or more linear beads comprising controlling, by at least one of the process or of the measuring device or a second processor of the robot, the robot to dispense the one or more linear beads using at least one process parameter.
As for claim 10, REEKSMAN teaches, in Fig. 2, "the robotic device 200 may include a robotic arm 202 with an end-effector 204. The end-effector 204 can be equipped with one or more other tools, grippers, or guides. The robotic arm 202 can move along one or more degrees of freedom" (paragraph 58, lines 4-8), i.e. wherein the robot comprises a dispensing head and an articulating arm.
REEKSMAN teaches "The controller 308 can then generate instructions that cause the end-effector to perform the adhesive deposition task. In particular, the controller 308 generates instructions indicative of a toolpath and one or more control parameters of the applicator 402. The control parameters of the applicator 402 may include a speed of the applicator 402, a pressure at which the applicator 402 deposits an adhesive, a type of adhesive to be deposited, etc" (paragraph 89, lines 1-8) and "In an embodiment, the controller 308 could generate the instructions based on the task parameters or task data and real-time worksite data. In particular, the instructions could include instructions indicative of the toolpath for the end-effector. Within examples, the instructions that are generated by the controller 308, and that cause an end-effector to perform a task by following a parametric toolpath, could be referred to as "parametric instructions." To generate the instructions indicative of the toolpath, the controller 308 could use the realtime worksite data to receive or generate a representation of the worksite. Then, the controller 308 could identify the features ( e.g., features of the as-built and/or the worksite) with respect to which the toolpath (that was generated in the design phase) is defined. Once the features are identified, the controller 308 could map the parametric toolpath to the identified features. The controller 308 could then generate instructions indicative of the mapped toolpath. By generating instructions/mapping the parametric instructions for tasks at runtime, the controller 308 can account for any changes in the worksite and/or any deviations from the parametric model" (paragraph 77), i.e. wherein controlling the robot comprises: controlling, by the at least one of the processor of the measuring device or a second processor of the robot, the dispensing head to dispense the linear bead of the liquid adhesive onto the surf ace of the substrate; and controlling, by the at least one of the processor of the measuring device or the second processor of the robot, the articulating arm to control a position and a velocity of the dispensing head relative to the surface of the substrate.
As for claim 11, REEKSMAN further teaches "the task may be a deposition task where an end-effector, which includes an adhesive applicator, is tasked with depositing an adhesive onto an object. The robotic device can move the end-effector in a predetermined trajectory in order to deposit the adhesive onto an object. In some examples, the robotic device can be configured to repeatedly perform a task by moving the end-effector along the predetermined trajectory (e.g., in a manufacturing or processing environment)" (paragraph 22, lines 14-22), "The instructions may cause the robotic arm to move the end-effector to deposit the adhesive onto the surface in a desired pattern" (paragraph 23, lines 7-9) and "Based on the one or more parameters, the controller 308 can determine an adhesive deposition pattern to be deposited on the surface 41 0A of the tile. In particular, the adhesive deposition pattern is determined such that the pattern satisfies the desired parameter (e.g., deposition coverage area) indicated by the parametric model 400A. Within examples, the system can use one or more characteristics of the tile and/or one more characteristics of the worksite to determine the adhesive deposition pattern that satisfies the one or more parameters" (paragraph 81, lines 1-10), i.e. wherein dispensing comprises dispensing a plurality of beads of the liquid adhesive, each respective bead of the plurality of beads dispensed using a respective at least one process parameter of a plurality of process parameters.
As for claim 12, REEKMAN teaches "The designs 164 may also be indicative of how a physical structure of the output product will be configured and how it will perform once constructed by the robotic device 110. As such, and as explained below, the controller 150 may use the designs 164 as a guide to generate instructions for the robotic device 110. The instructions may be indicative of specific robotic actions that can be performed by the robotic device 110 to construct a portion of or the entire output product" (paragraph 47; see further paragraphs 48 and 49), and further teaches "Based on the one or more parameters, the controller 308 can determine an adhesive deposition pattern to be deposited on the surface 41 0A of the tile. In particular, the adhesive deposition pattern is determined such that the pattern satisfies the desired parameter (e.g., deposition coverage area) indicated by the parametric model 400A. Within examples, the system can use one or more characteristics of the tile and/or one more characteristics of the worksite to determine the adhesive deposition pattern that satisfies the one or more parameters" (paragraph 81, lines 1-10), i.e. wherein dispensing comprises dispensing a plurality of beads of the liquid adhesive, each respective bead of the plurality of beads dispensed using a respective at least one process parameter of a plurality of process parameters.
As for claim 13, REEKMAN teaches "The designs 164 may also be indicative of how a physical structure of the output product will be configured and how it will perform once constructed by the robotic device 110. As such, and as explained below, the controller 150 may use the designs 164 as a guide to generate instructions for the robotic device 110. The instructions may be indicative of specific robotic actions that can be performed by the robotic device 11 0 to construct a portion of or the entire output product" (paragraph 47; see further paragraphs 48 and 49), and further teaches "Based on the one or more parameters, the controller 308 can determine an adhesive deposition pattern to be deposited on the surface 41 0A of the tile. In particular, the adhesive deposition pattern is determined such that the pattern satisfies the desired parameter (e.g., deposition coverage area) indicated by the parametric model 400A. Within examples, the system can use one or more characteristics of the tile and/or one more characteristics of the worksite to determine the adhesive deposition pattern that satisfies the one or more parameters" (paragraph 81, lines 1-10), i.e. wherein the shape of the target complex dispense path is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the shape of the target complex dispense path such that the desired structure of the output product with the desired properties is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 14, REEKMAN teaches "The designs 164 may also be indicative of how a physical structure of the output product will be configured and how it will perform once constructed by the robotic device 110. As such, and as explained below, the controller 150 may use the designs 164 as a guide to generate instructions for the robotic device 110. The instructions may be indicative of specific robotic actions that can be performed by the robotic device 11 0 to construct a portion of or the entire output product" (paragraph 47; see further paragraphs 48 and 49), and further teaches "Based on the one or more parameters, the controller 308 can determine an adhesive deposition pattern to be deposited on the surface 41 0A of the tile. In particular, the adhesive deposition pattern is determined such that the pattern satisfies the desired parameter (e.g., deposition coverage area) indicated by the parametric model 400A. Within examples, the system can use one or more characteristics of the tile and/or one more characteristics of the worksite to determine the adhesive deposition pattern that satisfies the one or more parameters" (paragraph 81, lines 1-10) and "wherein the one or more parametric instructions further indicate at least one of: a speed at which the adhesive applicator moves along the toolpath, an amount of adhesive to deposit, or a pressure at which the adhesive applicator dispenses the adhesive onto the surf ace" (claim 8)i.e. wherein the amount, and pattern of the adhesive being applied are result effective variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the shape of the adhesive bead, i.e. the height, width, or cross sectional area, such that the desired structure of the output product with the desired properties is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 15, Examiner notes that as written, the claim 15 only requires that the method identify, by a processor, a process window. There is nothing in the claim that requires that process window be implemented. It is only required to be observed. As such, the calculation of this process window has no effect on the claimed process. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the calculation of the process does not provide patentable distinction as the process window appears to incidental absent evidence.
As for claim 16, Examiner notes that as written, the claim 16 only requires that the method identify, by a processor, a gradient of the response There is nothing in the claim that requires that this gradient of response be used in any kind of later of step in the system. It is only required to be observed. As such, the calculation of this gradient has no effect on the claimed process. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the calculation of the gradient does not provide patentable distinction as the observation of the gradient appears to incidental absent evidence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments/remarks are summarized and addressed below.
(a) Applicant argues that REEKMANS fails to teach along a 1D path representative of a target complex dispense path, which corresponds to at least one of a 2D and 3D path.
Examiner notes that Applicant appears to be focused on whether REEKMANS explicitly teaches the claims. However, this was not the basis of the rejection. The rejection was based on obviousness, not anticipation. While REEKMANS does not anticipate this limitation, but it does render it obvious as provides a detailed discussion on how one of ordinary skill in the art can generate control methods using parameters (including 1D parameters) to guide a toolpath to provide a 2D or 3D pattern on a substrate. So while REEKMANS might not use the exact language of the claim, it does render the claim obvious by providing clear examples and relying on the skill of the ordinary artisan to design its model using a desired parameter to achieve its demonstrably 2D/3D pattern.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717