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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s foreign priority claim, for U.S. Application No. 17/770,254, based on a foreign application filed on 12/10/2019.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–10 are pending in the application. Claims 1-5 and 9-10 are rejected.
Claims 6, 7, and 8 are objected to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
Overview of Grounds of Rejection
Ground of Rejection
Claim(s)
Statute(s)
Reference(s)
1
1
§ 103
Akeel et al. in view of Morden et al.
2
2
§ 103
Akeel et al. in view of Morden et al.; further in view of Miga et al. and Srinivasan et al.
3
3
§ 103
Akeel et al. in view of Morden et al.; further in view of Miga et al.
4
4
§ 103
Akeel et al. in view of Morden et al., Miga et al., and Srinivasan et al.; further in view of Roth et al.
5
5
§ 103
Akeel et al. in view of Miga et al. and Srinivasan et al.; further in view of Roth et al. and Ponulak et al.
6
9
§ 103
Akeel et al. in view of Srinivasan et al.
7
10
§ 103
Akeel et al. in view of Roth et al.; further in view of Ponulak et al.
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 of this title, 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.
(Please see the cited paragraphs, sections, pages, or surrounding text in the references for the paraphrased content.)
Ground of Rejection 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. (US20190047145A1) in view of Morden et al. (US20050121422A1).
As per Claim 1, Akeel teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“A device for defining a generic movement sequence on a generic model, wherein said device comprises:”
Akeel et al. teaches a vision-guided robotic programming system for generating an “actual robot path program” for an actual object based on a “similar object.” That teaching corresponds to defining a movement sequence using a nominal or generic model from which the operational path is derived. — Akeel et al., ¶ [0051].
Akeel teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“a means for acquiring a position of a reference element moving over a surface; said reference element being configured to perform an actual movement sequence;”
Akeel et al. teaches that the robot “records the exact end point” and then moves along the identified path segment on the target. Akeel et al. further describes a welding example in which the robot proceeds along the target line on the mating surfaces while recording exact points as it moves. This reasonably teaches acquiring the position of a reference element moving over a surface while carrying out the actual movement sequence. — Akeel et al., ¶ [0030], ¶ [0039].
Akeel teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“a means for recording said sequence of actual movements;”
Akeel et al. teaches that the “program is then fully recorded” and explains that the path is recorded for repetitive execution or future use on identical targets. This directly corresponds to recording the sequence of actual movements. — Akeel et al., ¶ [0031].
Akeel alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Morden et al., they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Morden et al. teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“a means for acquiring a three-dimensional representation of said surface;”
Akeel et al. does not fully teach acquiring the three-dimensional surface representation used for adaptation in the manner recited. Morden et al. teaches a “3D digitizer scanner” that scans the workpiece to determine the “as-built condition,” and further teaches generating a point cloud and an approximated “surface representation.” This teaches acquiring a three-dimensional representation of the surface. — Morden et al., ¶ [0020], ¶ [0034].
Morden et al. teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“a means for adapting said generic model to said three-dimensional representation of said surface;”
Akeel et al. does not fully teach that the generic model is adapted using the acquired three-dimensional representation of the surface. Morden et al. teaches that the computer “compares the as-built data” with the “as-designed data” and “modifies or ‘morphs’” the model data based on the scanned workpiece geometry. That teaching corresponds to adapting a generic or nominal model to the acquired three-dimensional representation of the surface. — Morden et al., ¶ [0021], ¶ [0024].
Akeel and Morden teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“and a means for defining a generic movement sequence on said generic model by applying to said real movement sequence said adaptation between said generic model and said three-dimensional representation of said surface.”
For the portion directed to defining the movement sequence from the model, Akeel et al. teaches generating a “mapping transform” and applying that transform to the “nominal path” to obtain the “desired path.” This teaches using a model-based mapping relationship to define the operative movement sequence. — Akeel et al., ¶ [0041], ¶ [0049]-[0050].
For the portion requiring that the defining step use the adaptation between the generic model and the three-dimensional representation of the surface, Morden et al. teaches performing a “best fit” between scanned mesh data and the design model, and then creating an as-built “projection control file” whose coordinates are replaced using coordinates derived from the scanned mesh. This supplies the missing teaching that the path definition is based on the adaptation relationship between the nominal model and the acquired three-dimensional surface geometry. — Morden et al., ¶ [0034].
Accordingly, Akeel et al. teaches the model-based movement-sequence transfer, while Morden et al. teaches deriving and applying that transfer from scanned three-dimensional surface geometry and model adaptation. The combination therefore teaches the full scope of Claim 1.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Akeel et al. with Morden et al. because Akeel et al. seeks robot path programming that is transformable across similar objects and reduces repetitive re-programming, while Morden et al. corrects nominal model and path data using scanned as-built geometry so that placement remains accurate when the real surface differs from the nominal design. Combining these teachings would have predictably improved system accuracy, reduced manual reteaching, and enabled reliable transfer of movement sequences between a generic model and a real, scanned surface, with the expected result of better geometric conformity and more efficient robotic operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. (US20190047145A1) in view of Morden et al. (US20050121422A1), and further in view of Miga et al. (US20120330635A1) and Srinivasan et al. (NPL).
As per Claim 2, Akeel alone do not explicitly teach all of the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Miga and Srinivasan, they collectively teach all the limitation(s).
Srinivasan teaches the following portion of Claim 2 that recites:
“The device according to claim 1, wherein said adaptation means is configured to fit said generic model to said three-dimensional representation of said surface”
Srinivasan et al. (NPL) teaches: “The nominal workpiece model (reference surfaces) is transformed (using the ICP algorithm) to fit the model generated from the scan data.” — Srinivasan et al. (NPL), p. 1133, Fig. 8.
This shows fitting the generic model to the 3D representation of the surface.
Akeel teaches the following portion of Claim 2 that recites:
“said recording means is configured to record said actual movement sequence on said generic model as it is fitted to the dimensions of said three-dimensional representation of said surface”
Akeel et al. teaches that “the path is recorded” and that “applying the same mapping transform to the nominal path” is used “to generate [the] desired path.” — Akeel et al., ¶ [0031], ¶ [0041].
This supports recording the actual movement sequence onto the generic or nominal path while that path is being mapped to the fitted geometry.
Miga teaches the following portion of Claim 2 that recites:
“and said defining means are configured to transform said generic model with said recorded movement sequence so that said generic model resumes those initial parameters.”
Miga et al. teaches that the fitted model is associated with reverse deformation values, and that “its transformation into the original computer model space will be based on the envelope” and “the location of the instrument/object in physical space is transformed by the reverse displacement field. Once performed, the instrument/object location has been effectively undeformed.” — Miga et al., ¶ [0055]-[0057].
This supports the “resume those initial parameters” requirement, because it returns the fitted/deformed model context back to the original computer model space and an effectively undeformed state.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Akeel et al. (US20190047145A1) with Srinivasan et al. (NPL) and Miga et al. (US20120330635A1) because Akeel et al. teaches recording and mapping a nominal path to a desired path for a similar object, Srinivasan et al. teaches fitting a nominal model to scan-generated surface data, and Miga et al. teaches applying reverse deformation so a fitted model or tracked object location can be returned to the original computer-model space. Combining these teachings would have predictably improved path transfer across objects of different dimensions, enhanced geometric accuracy with scan-based fitting, and allowed the recorded movement sequence to be transformed back to the model’s initial parameter space for reliable reuse, with no more than routine application of known fitting, mapping, and reverse-transformation techniques.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. (US20190047145A1) in view of Morden et al. (US20050121422A1), and further in view of Miga et al. (US20120330635A1).
As per Claim 3, Akeel alone does not explicitly teach all of the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Morden and Miga, they collectively teach all the limitation(s).
Miga teaches the following portion of Claim 3 that recites:
“The device according to claim 1, wherein said adaptation means is configured to calculate the difference between said generic model and said three-dimensional representation of said surface”
Akeel et al. does not clearly teach calculating the difference in the claimed manner. Miga et al. teaches “spatial difference values are computed for each node within the patch region” of the “computer model” relative to the “surface data,” and further teaches that such values indicate how nodes move toward the corresponding surface data points. This teaches calculating the difference between the generic model and the three-dimensional representation of the surface. Miga et al., ¶¶ [0035]-[0036].
Akeel teaches the following portion of Claim 3 that recites:
“said recording means is configured to record said actual movement sequence independently of said generic model”
Akeel et al. teaches “identifying and recording a corresponding point 1 d on an actual path,” “identify and record points 2 d to Ed as the tool moves successively between points recognized and recorded on the actual path,” and terminating when “the desired path is fully recorded.” This teaches recording the actual movement sequence as actual-path data, separate from the nominal path of the generic model, even though Akeel et al. does not use the exact word “independently.” Akeel et al., ¶ [0052].
Morden teaches the following portion of Claim 3 that recites:
“said defining means are configured to transform said recorded movement sequence according to the difference calculated by said adaptation means”
Morden et al. teaches “Quantify the as-built versus the as-designed variations” for the projection path data and then “replace all as-designed projection control file polyline coordinates with their associated original source projection mesh pierce point coordinates.”
This teaches transforming the recorded movement sequence or path coordinates according to the calculated difference between the nominal model and the scanned surface. Morden et al., ¶ [0034].
Akeel teaches the following portion of Claim 3 that recites:
“and wherein the device comprises a means for positioning said generic movement sequence on said generic model.”
Akeel et al. teaches “providing the vision system with a nominal object image having a nominal path referenced to a robot geometric reference frame” and “superimposing the nominal object image on the actual object image.” This teaches positioning the generic movement sequence, namely the nominal path, on the generic model, namely the nominal object image. Akeel et al., ¶ [0052].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Akeel et al. with Morden et al. and Miga et al. because Akeel et al. teaches recording and positioning a nominal-to-actual movement path, Morden et al. teaches quantifying as-built versus as-designed variations and correcting path coordinates based on those variations, and Miga et al. teaches computing spatial difference values between a computer model and surface data. Combining these teachings would have predictably improved geometric accuracy, enabled path correction based on measured surface differences, and provided reliable placement of a generic movement sequence on a model with no more than routine use of known mapping and correction techniques.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. (US20190047145A1) in view of Morden et al. (US20050121422A1), Miga et al. (US20120330635A1), and Srinivasan et al. (NPL), and further in view of Roth et al. (US20100094461A1).
As per Claim 4, Akeel alone do not explicitly teach all of the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Roth, they collectively teach all the limitation(s).
Roth teaches the following portion of Claim 4 that recites:
“The device according to claim 2, wherein said acquisition means of said position of said reference element are configured to detect an orientation of said reference element”
Roth et al. teaches that the measurement system is configured to “automatically determine each respective position and orientation of the end effector” and transmit data representative of that determined position and orientation. This teaches detecting the orientation of the reference element. Roth et al., ¶ [0007].
Roth teaches the following portion of Claim 4 that recites:
“to report this orientation on the various points of the sequence of the generic displacements.”
Roth et al. further teaches “detecting each movement position,” “transforming each detected position to respective co-ordinate data,” “storing the transmitted co-ordinate data,” and that “the co-ordinate data can be detected in six dimensions.” This teaches reporting orientation together with position at multiple points along the movement sequence. Roth et al., ¶ [0006], ¶ [0014], ¶ [0030]-[0031].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Roth et al. with Akeel et al. because Roth et al. teaches determining and storing position-and-orientation data for successive movement points, while Akeel et al. teaches recording successive points along a generic/desired path. Combining these teachings would have predictably improved path teaching by enabling orientation information to be captured and associated with multiple points of the recorded displacement sequence for more accurate and reusable robotic motion control.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. (US20190047145A1) in view of Miga et al. (US20120330635A1) and Srinivasan et al. (NPL), and further in view of Roth et al. (US20100094461A1) and Ponulak et al. (US20150127150A1).
As per Claim 5, Akeel alone do not explicitly teach all of the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Roth and Ponulak, they collectively teach all the limitation(s).
Roth and Ponulak teach the following portion of Claim 5 that recites:
“The device according to claim 2, wherein said acquisition means of said position of said reference element are configured to detect the actions carried out or the stresses undergone by the said element of reference”
Roth et al. teaches a measurement system fitted “between the handling joint … and an end effector” and that the measurement system may be “a force measurement system for measurement of masses picked up and/or forces acting.” Ponulak et al. further teaches that the arm may be equipped with a “force/torque sensor,” and that “force/torque vectors generated by the trainer may be inferred.” These teachings cover detecting actions carried out or stresses undergone by the reference element. Roth et al., ¶ [0043]; Ponulak et al., ¶ [0050], ¶ [0057]-[0058].
Akeel teaches the following portion of Claim 5 that recites:
“to transfer these actions or these constraints to the various points of the generic movement sequence.”
Akeel et al. teaches a method “that carries process activation parameters from a reference path to a desired path,” and further teaches that “process trigger points recorded at points on the nominal path may be added to the corresponding points on the desired path program.” This teaches transferring detected actions or constraints to various points of the generic movement sequence. Akeel et al., ¶ [0013], ¶ [0038].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Roth et al. and Ponulak et al. with Akeel et al. because Roth et al. and Ponulak et al. teach detecting forces, torques, and other interaction-related conditions at or near the end effector during teaching, while Akeel et al. teaches transferring recorded path-associated parameters to corresponding points of a mapped movement sequence. Combining these teachings would have predictably improved robotic teaching by allowing force- or stress-related information to be captured and associated with pointwise path data for more accurate and reusable motion control.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 6
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. (US20190047145A1) in view of Srinivasan et al. (NPL).
As per Claim 9, Akeel alone do not explicitly teach all of the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Srinivasan, they collectively teach all the limitation(s).
Srinivasan teaches the following portion of Claim 9 that recites:
“a means for detecting feature points on said three-dimensional representation”
Srinivasan et al. teaches that “fiducial features” are captured in the scan data, that “the position and orientation of the fiducial features captured along with the workpiece are estimated,” and that the fiducial features were designed to facilitate “accurate detection in the 3D scan data.” This teaches detecting feature points on the three-dimensional representation. Srinivasan et al. (NPL), Section 2; Section 3.2.
Srinivasan teaches the following portion of Claim 9 that recites:
“and a means for transforming the generic model in rotation and/or in translation, so that said position of said feature points corresponds to a position of feature points of the generic model.”
Srinivasan et al. further teaches an “initial global fit” that “transforms the fiducial feature model to its approximate location in the scan,” and states that the overall registration transformation includes “translation and rotation.” Srinivasan et al. also teaches that “The nominal workpiece model (reference surfaces) is transformed (using the ICP algorithm) to fit the model generated from the scan data.” This teaches transforming the generic model in rotation and/or translation so that the feature-point positions correspond. Srinivasan et al. (NPL), Sections 3.4.1-3.4.2, Fig. 7, Fig. 8.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Srinivasan et al.’s fiducial-feature detection and scan-to-model registration techniques in the system of Akeel et al. because Akeel et al. teaches generating robot paths that are “transformable for application to different objects of similar geometries” and using object comparison and mapping to produce a desired path, while Srinivasan et al. teaches accurate feature-based translation/rotation fitting of a nominal model to scanned data. Combining these teachings would have predictably improved geometric alignment and path placement for similar objects with scan-derived feature correspondence.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 7
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Akeel et al. (US20190047145A1) in view of Roth et al. (US20100094461A1), and further in view of Ponulak et al. (US20150127150A1).
As per Claim 10, Akeel alone does not explicitly teach all of the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Roth and Ponulak, they collectively teach all the limitation(s).
Roth teaches the following portion of Claim 10 that recites:
“The device according to claim 1, wherein said reference element corresponds to a glove”
Roth et al. teaches a manually guided “handling appliance” fitted to an end effector, where an operator is “operating the handling appliance” and the system is “detecting each movement position of the handling appliance.” Roth et al., ¶ [0014], ¶ [0007].
Akeel and Ponulak teach the following portion of Claim 10 that recites:
“and said movement sequences correspond to movements performed by said glove during a massage.”
Akeel et al. teaches recording path points and process commands along a surface-following path, where “the process can be ProphyJet™ cleaning along the arch of a human jaw” and “activation points for Process commands can be recorded along the path.” Ponulak et al. further teaches a trainer applying “a haptic action” including “a push, a pull, a movement … grasp, manipulate” and “grabbing and moving the arm along the target trajectory.” These teachings provide support for hand-guided movement sequences over a body surface. Akeel et al., ¶ [0052], ¶ [0072], ¶ [0095]; Ponulak et al., ¶ [0049], ¶ [0107].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Roth et al.’s manually guided teaching appliance with Akeel et al.’s recorded surface-treatment path and Ponulak et al.’s haptic, hand-guided trajectory teaching in order to capture hand-driven movements and transfer them into a reusable movement sequence for robotic execution, with the predictable result of improving intuitive teaching of body-surface treatment motions.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied upon in this action is as follows:
Patent Literature:
Akeel et al. (US20190047145A1) — “Vision guided robot path programming”
Miga et al. (US20120330635A1) — “System and method for correcting data for deformations during image-guided procedures”
Morden et al. (US20050121422A1) — “Laser projection system, intelligent data correction system and method”
Ponulak et al. (US20150127150A1) — “Apparatus and methods for haptic training of robots”
Roth et al. (US20100094461A1) — “Method for teaching an industrial robot, and a correspondingly equipped industrial robot”
Non-Patent Literature (NPL):
Srinivasan et al. (NPL) — “Automatic part localization in a CNC machine coordinate system by means of 3D scans”, 2015. Available at: [https://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/865.21/people/joon/component/data/localization.pdf]
Note: A PDF copy of each NPL reference is attached with this Office Action. URLs are included for applicant convenience. If a link becomes unavailable in the future, the citation information may be used to locate the reference or access archived versions via the Wayback Machine.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed as follows:
Patent Literature:
(none)
Non-Patent Literature (NPL):
(none)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADEEL BASHIR whose telephone number is (571) 270-0440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on (571) 276-7642. 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.
/ADEEL BASHIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616