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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2023, 08/18/2023, and 10/03/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
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:
a positioner in claim 1, line 3 and claim 14, line 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
a positioner corresponding to “a multi-axis positioning apparatus, such as a polar axis machine” [0027].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy et al. (US 20150207987 A1), hereinafter Troy, further in view of Woodside et al. (US 20230075352 A1), hereinafter Woodside.
Regarding claim 1, Troy teaches a computer-implemented method (“methods for tracking the locations of a movable target object (e.g., a crawler vehicle or other electro-mechanical machine that is guided by a computer program)” [0002]) for positioning a workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8) for a computer numerical controlled (CNC) process (“guided by a computer program” [0002]), the method comprising: causing a positioner (robotic arm 86 and robot base 84, Fig. 8) to move an end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8) to an initial position (Position of effector 88, which is attached to arm 86 attached to robot base 84, “when the robot base is in the desired location” [0070]); receiving first position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 92a-c, Figs. 8-9) associated with a first optical signal (Signal obtained by “local positioning system” when “tak[ing] measurements of the three reference points 92a-c” [0070] which is construed as using “reflection of the laser beam off the targets to the laser range finder of the LPS hardware 22” [0059]) transmitted from a first optical target (positions of three reference points 92a-c on part 90, Fig. 8) coupled to the workpiece (“92a-c on the part 90” [0070], Fig. 8); receiving second position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 94a-c, Figs. 8-9) associated with a second optical signal (Signal obtained by “local positioning system” when “tak[ing] measurements of the three reference points 94a-c on the robot base 84” [0070], Fig. 8) which is construed as using “reflection of the laser beam off the targets to the laser range finder of the LPS hardware 22” [0059]) transmitted from a second optical target (positions of three reference points 94a-c on robot base 84, Fig. 8);
determining an offset between the initial position (“compute the position and orientation offset of the part 90 relative to the robot base 84” [0070])… based on the first position information and the second position information (“localization process 64” is construed as using measurement data from points 92a-c and 94a-c); and causing the positioner to move the end effector (Robotic arm 86 is construed as moving in order to “correct the position and orientation of such target objects” [0070] like end effector 88) to a final position (Corrected position resulting from “this automated process… us[ing] the measured location data to correct the position and orientation of such target objects” [0007]) based on the offset.
Troy does not teach a second optical target coupled to the end effector,… a target position for the end effector.
Woodside teaches a second optical target (see mapping to Troy) coupled to (“6 DoF sensor carried by the end effector” [0010], Fig. 2) the end effector (see mapping to Troy),… a target position (“desired end position and orientation”, [0036]) for the end effector (see mapping to Troy).
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 second optical target and end effector of Troy to couple to the end effector and have a target position. Troy and Woodside are analogous arts because they both relate to robotic tracking systems. Troy teaches a second optical target located on a robotic base and correcting the position and orientation of target objects [0070]. Woodside teaches an optical target coupled to an end effector and a desired end position and orientation of an end effector [0036]. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide optical targets on an end effector and move an end effector to an ending position. By doing so, one would be able to “accurately relate” the “location of the laser sensor target 21” to “position and orientation of the end effector 17 or to the position and orientation of any tool or the like carried by the end effector” [0036] as identified by Woodside and position the end effector in a controlled and predictable manner.
Regarding claim 3, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein determining the offset (“compute the position and orientation offset of the part 90 relative to the robot base 84” [0070]; Troy) between the initial position (Position of effector 88, which is attached to arm 86 attached to robot base 84, “when the robot base is in the desired location” [0070]; Troy) and the target position (“desired end position and orientation”, [0036]; Woodside) for the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy) comprises determining an actual position (points 92a-c are “on the part 90” [0070], Fig. 8) of the workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8) based on the first position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 92a-c, Figs. 8-9; Troy) and an actual position (“location of the laser sensor target 21 may be readily and accurately related to the position and orientation of the end effector 17” [0036]; Woodside) of the end effector based on the second position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 94a-c, Figs. 8-9; Troy).
Regarding claim 4, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising determining the initial position (Position of effector 88, which is attached to arm 86 attached to robot base 84, “when the robot base is in the desired location” [0070]; Troy) of the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy) based on at least the second position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 94a-c, Figs. 8-9; Troy).
Regarding claim 5, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising determining the initial position (Position of effector 88, which is attached to arm 86 attached to robot base 84, “when the robot base is in the desired location” [0070]; Troy) of the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy) based on the second position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 94a-c, Figs. 8-9; Troy) and third position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 94a-c, Figs. 8-9; Troy) that is associated with a third optical signal (Signal obtained by “local positioning system” when “tak[ing] measurements of the three reference points 94a-c on the robot base 84” [0070], Fig. 8; Troy) transmitted from a third optical target (positions of three reference points 94a-c on robot base 84, Fig. 8; Troy) coupled to the positioner (94a-c on robot base 84, Fig. 8; Troy).
Regarding claim 6, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the third optical target (positions of three reference points 94a-c on robot base 84, Fig. 8; Troy) is coupled to one of a stationary base (94a-c on robot base 84, Fig. 8; Troy) of the positioner (robotic arm 86, Fig. 8; Troy) or a movable arm of the positioner.
Regarding claim 13, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy) is moved to the initial position (Position of effector 88, which is attached to arm 86 attached to robot base 84, “when the robot base is in the desired location” [0070]; Troy) via an open-loop control technique (“robot was commanded to a single position and samples of the kinematic error estimate were measured both with (closed-loop) and without (open-loop) applying a correction with the KEC algorithm” [0091], Woodside).
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 method of Troy to move the end effector in an open loop. Troy and Woodside are analogous arts because they both relate to robotic tracking systems. Troy teaches an end effector in an initial position. Woodside teaches a robot commanded to a position in an open loop. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to move an end effector in an open loop. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a “less expensive, less precise position control, and a lighter robot” [0049] as identified by Woodside.
Regarding claim 14, Troy teaches a system, comprising: a positioner (robotic arm 86 and robot base 84, Fig. 8) having an end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8); a laser tracker that determines first position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 92a-c, Figs. 8-9) associated with a first optical signal (Signal obtained by “local positioning system” when “tak[ing] measurements of the three reference points 92a-c” [0070] which is construed as using “reflection of the laser beam off the targets to the laser range finder of the LPS hardware 22” [0059]) transmitted from a first optical target (positions of three reference points 92a-c on part 90, Fig. 8) coupled to a workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8) and second position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 94a-c, Figs. 8-9) associated with a second optical signal (Signal obtained by “local positioning system” when “tak[ing] measurements of the three reference points 94a-c on the robot base 84” [0070], Fig. 8) which is construed as using “reflection of the laser beam off the targets to the laser range finder of the LPS hardware 22” [0059]) transmitted from a second optical target (positions of three reference points 94a-c on robot base 84, Fig. 8) coupled to the end effector; and a controller (robot controller 80, Fig. 8) that executes instructions (“robot controller 80 controls the robotic arm 86 and operates the end effector 88 for performing machining operations on the part 90” [0065]) and performs the steps of: causing the positioner to move the end effector (“robotic arm 86 that may carry an end effector 88 on a distal end thereof. The robot controller 80 controls the robotic arm 86 and operates the end effector 88” [0065]) to an initial position (Position of effector 88, which is attached to arm 86 attached to robot base 84, “when the robot base is in the desired location” [0070]); receiving the first position information from the laser tracker (“(2) use the local positioning system to take measurements of the three reference points 92a-c on the part 90 (step 62) when the part is in the desired location (this is equivalent to a standard LPS calibration)… (5) send the position and orientation offset data to the robot controller 80 (step 66)” [0070]); receiving the second position information from the laser tracker (“(3) use the local positioning system to take measurements of the three reference points 94a-c on the robot base 84 (step 70) when the robot base is in the desired location… (5) send the position and orientation offset data to the robot controller 80 (step 66).” [0070]); determining an offset between the initial position (“compute the position and orientation offset of the part 90 relative to the robot base 84” [0070]) and a target position for the end effector based on the first position information and the second position information (“localization process 64” is construed as using measurement data from points 92a-c and 94a-c); and causing the positioner to move the end effector (Robotic arm 86 is construed as moving in order to “correct the position and orientation of such target objects” [0070] like end effector 88) to a final processing position (Corrected position resulting from “this automated process… us[ing] the measured location data to correct the position and orientation of such target objects” [0007]) based on the offset.
Troy does not teach a second optical target coupled to the end effector,… a target position for the end effector.
Woodside teaches a second optical target (see mapping to Troy) coupled to (“6 DoF sensor carried by the end effector” [0010], Fig. 2) the end effector (see mapping to Troy),… a target position (“desired end position and orientation”, [0036]) for the end effector (see mapping to Troy).
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 second optical target and end effector of Troy to couple to the end effector and have a target position. Troy and Woodside are analogous arts because they both relate to robotic tracking systems. Troy teaches a second optical target located on a robotic base and correcting the position and orientation of target objects [0070]. Woodside teaches an optical target coupled to an end effector and a desired end position and orientation of an end effector [0036]. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide optical targets on an end effector and move an end effector to an ending position. By doing so, one would be able to “accurately relate” the “location of the laser sensor target 21” to “position and orientation of the end effector 17 or to the position and orientation of any tool or the like carried by the end effector” [0036] as identified by Woodside and position the end effector in a controlled and predictable manner.
Regarding claim 17, Troy and Woodside teach the system of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above)… the workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8; Troy).
Troy and Woodside do not teach further comprising a movable stage that supports the workpiece and a third optical target that is coupled to the movable stage.
Gibson teaches further comprising a movable stage (“rotating the print platform 18” [0049], Fig. 1; Gibson) that supports the workpiece (see mapping to Troy) and a third optical target (first printing platform tracker 30b, Fig. 1) that is coupled to the movable stage (see tracker 30b attached to platform 18 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Troy, Woodside, and Gibson teach the system of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the controller (robot controller 80, Fig. 8; Troy) determines the offset between the initial position (“compute the position and orientation offset of the part 90 relative to the robot base 84” [0070]; Troy) and the target position (“desired end position and orientation”, [0036]; Woodside) of the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy) based on third position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 94a-c, Figs. 8-9; Troy) associated with a third optical signal (Light reflected from tracker 30b which may be “retro-reflective targets” [0040]; Gibson) transmitted from the third optical target (first printing platform tracker 30b, Fig. 1; Gibson).
Regarding claim 20, Troy and Woodside teach the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy) is moved to the initial position (Position of effector 88, which is attached to arm 86 attached to robot base 84, “when the robot base is in the desired location” [0070]; Troy) via an open-loop control technique (“robot was commanded to a single position and samples of the kinematic error estimate were measured both with (closed-loop) and without (open-loop) applying a correction with the KEC algorithm” [0091], Woodside).
Claims 2, 8-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy et al. (US 20150207987 A1), hereinafter Troy, further in view of Woodside et al. (US 20230075352 A1), hereinafter Woodside, and Gibson (US 20180361729 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the positioner (robotic arm 86 and robot base 84, Fig. 8; Troy) moves the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy) to the final position (Corrected position resulting from “this automated process… us[ing] the measured location data to correct the position and orientation of such target objects” [0007]; Troy)… the end effector performs a processing operation (“machining operations” [0065]; Troy) on the workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8).
Troy and Woodside do not teach prior to when.
Gibson teaches prior to when (“computer 12 can assist the user in guiding the placement of the robot 16 into the optimal location to print the next portion of object 22 or movement instruction may be transmitted to the robot to do its own moving. Printing can now continue” [0053], Fig. 1).
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 step order of Troy to move an end effector before machining. Troy, Woodside, and Gibson are analogous arts because they both relate to robotic tracking systems. Troy teaches a positioner, end effector, and a machining operation. Woodside teaches an end effector. Gibson teaches guiding a robot attached to a print head before printing continues. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to move a robot before continuing printing. By doing so, one would be able to reduce machining defects by ensuring a robot is calibrated correctly.
Regarding claim 8, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein determining the offset between the initial position (“compute the position and orientation offset of the part 90 relative to the robot base 84” [0070]; Troy) and the target position (“desired end position and orientation”, [0036]; Woodside) of the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy).
Troy and Woodside do not teach is further based on third position information associated with a third optical signal transmitted from a third optical target coupled to a movable stage on which the workpiece is disposed.
Gibson teaches is further based on third position information associated with a third optical signal (Light reflected from tracker 30b which may be “retro-reflective targets” [0040]) transmitted from a third optical target (tracker 30b, Fig. 1) coupled to a movable stage (“rotating the print platform 18” [0049], Fig. 1) on which the workpiece (see mapping to Troy) is disposed (object 22 is shown on platform 18 in Fig. 1).
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 offset determination of Modified Troy to use movable stage sensors. Troy, Woodside, and Gibson are analogous arts because they both relate to robotic tracking systems. Troy teaches a positioner, end effector, and a machining operation. Woodside teaches an end effector. Gibson teaches optical sensors attached to a movable stage. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a movable stage sensor. By doing so, one would be able to control the rotational angle of a movable platform within specific tolerances, as identified by Gibson [0051].
Regarding claim 9, Troy, Woodside, and Gibson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the third position information (“manual point measurement[s]” of points 94a-c, Figs. 8-9; Troy) is associated with multiple optical targets (first printing platform tracker 30b, a second printing platform tracker 30h, Fig. 1) coupled to (see trackers 30b, 30h on platform 18 in Fig. 1) the movable stage (“rotating the print platform 18” [0049], Fig. 1; Gibson).
Regarding claim 10, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising, prior to determining the offset (“compute the position and orientation offset of the part 90 relative to the robot base 84” [0070]; Troy), causing a movable stage to move the workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8; Troy) to an initial workpiece processing position (“use the local positioning system to take measurements of the three reference points 92a-c on the part 90 (step 62) when the part is in the desired location” [0070]; Troy).
Troy and Woodside do not teach causing a movable stage to.
Gibson teaches causing a movable stage to (“object being printed is being rotated on platform 18” [0046], Fig. 1).
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 method of Modified Troy to include a movable stage. Troy, Woodside, and Gibson are analogous arts because they both relate to robotic tracking systems. Troy teaches a stage. Woodside teaches an end effector. Gibson teaches a movable stage. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a movable stage. By doing so, one would be able to obtain “automatic scanning of either the specimen or the object without requiring a user” [0046] as identified by Gibson.
Regarding claim 11, Troy, Woodside, and Gibson teach the computer-implemented method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), further comprising causing the movable stage (“rotating the print platform 18” [0049], Fig. 1; Gibson) to move the workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8; Troy) to a final workpiece processing position (corrected position of “target object” [0007] which may be part 90; Troy) based on the offset (“this automated process can use the measured location data” which is used in determining an offset [0070] “to correct the position and orientation of such target objects” [0007]; Troy).
Regarding claim 12, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising causing the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy) to perform at least one processing operation (“machining operations” [0065]; Troy) on the workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8; Troy) while the workpiece is disposed at the final processing position (corrected position of “target object” [0007] which may be part 90; Troy).
Troy and Woodside do not teach while the workpiece is disposed at the final processing position.
Gibson teaches while the workpiece (see mapping to Troy) is disposed at (“computer 12 can assist the user in guiding the placement of the robot 16 into the optimal location to print the next portion of object 22 or movement instruction may be transmitted to the robot to do its own moving. Printing can now continue, adding PLA material onto the existing portion of object being printed 2.. This procedure can be repeated as needed until the entire object 22 is completed or printed” [0053], Fig. 1; Last instance of printing procedure occurs when object 22 is at a last or final position) the final processing position (see mapping to Troy).
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 method of Modified Troy to process at a final position. Troy, Woodside, and Gibson are analogous arts because they both relate to robotic tracking systems. Troy teaches a final position. Woodside teaches an end effector. Gibson teaches moving and processing an object with a robot. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to process at a final location. By doing so, one would be able to correctly finishing processing an object.
Regarding claim 19, Troy and Woodside teach the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising causing the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy) to perform at least one processing operation (“machining operations” [0065]; Troy) on the workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8; Troy)… the final processing position (corrected position of “target object” [0007] which may be part 90; Troy).
Troy and Woodside do not teach while the workpiece is disposed at the final processing position.
Gibson teaches while the workpiece (see mapping to Troy) is disposed at (“computer 12 can assist the user in guiding the placement of the robot 16 into the optimal location to print the next portion of object 22 or movement instruction may be transmitted to the robot to do its own moving. Printing can now continue, adding PLA material onto the existing portion of object being printed 2.. This procedure can be repeated as needed until the entire object 22 is completed or printed” [0053], Fig. 1; Last instance of printing procedure occurs when object 22 is at a last or final position) the final processing position (see mapping to Troy).
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 method of Modified Troy to process at a final position. Troy, Woodside, and Gibson are analogous arts because they both relate to robotic tracking systems. Troy teaches a final position. Woodside teaches an end effector. Gibson teaches moving and processing an object with a robot. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to process at a final location. By doing so, one would be able to correctly finishing processing an object.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy et al. (US 20150207987 A1), hereinafter Troy, further in view of Woodside et al. (US 20230075352 A1), hereinafter Woodside and Sandelson et al. (US 20220241033 A1), hereinafter Sandelson.
Regarding claim 7, Troy and Woodside teach the computer-implemented method of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein determining the initial position (Position of effector 88, which is attached to arm 86 attached to robot base 84, “when the robot base is in the desired location” [0070]; Troy) of the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy)… the positioner (robotic arm 86 and robot base 84, Fig. 8; Troy).
is further based on fourth position information that is associated with a fourth optical signal transmitted from a fourth optical target coupled to the positioner.
Troy and Woodside do not teach is further based on fourth position information that is associated with a fourth optical signal transmitted from a fourth optical target coupled to the positioner.
Sandelson teaches is further based on fourth position information (“determine a position in space of the robotic arm 144 based on the relative orientation of the detected tracking markers of the at least one additional set of tracking markers 156 to the fixed, base set of tracking markers 158” [0072]) that is associated with a fourth optical signal (Light emitted from “set of tracking markers 156 may be light-emitting diodes (LEDs)” [0069]) transmitted from a fourth optical target coupled to (“second set of tracking markers 156B fixedly secured to or positioned on a second robotic arm segment 152B” [0067], Fig. 1A) the positioner.
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 method of Modified Troy to determine a position with robotic arm sensors. Troy, Woodside, and Sandelson are analogous arts because they all relate to robotic tracking systems. Troy teaches optical sensors for determining positions. Woodside teaches a movable end effector. Sandelson teaches an end effector and optical sensors as tracking markers coupled to a robotic arm for determining a position of an arm. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to determine positions with arm-coupled sensors. By doing so, one would be able to “enable verification of robotic integrity in real time” [0047] as identified by Sandelson.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy et al. (US 20150207987 A1), hereinafter Troy, further in view of Woodside et al. (US 20230075352 A1), hereinafter Woodside and Shapiro (US 20180147659 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Troy and Woodside teach the system of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the end effector (end effector 88, Fig. 8; Troy).
Troy and Woodside do not teach comprises a laser-engraving head.
Shapiro teaches comprises a laser-engraving head (“head 160 typically is a laser-cutting head, but can be a movable head of any type” [0037]).
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 offset determination of Modified Troy to use movable stage sensors. Troy, Woodside, and Shapiro are analogous arts because they both relate to tracking systems. Troy teaches a movable end effector. Woodside teaches a movable end effector. Shapiro teaches a movable head which may be a laser-cutting head and that cutting includes engraving [0023]. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a laser cutting head. By doing so, one would be able to “altering the appearance, properties, and/or state of a material” [0023] as identified by Shapiro.
Regarding claim 16, Troy, Woodside, and Shapiro teach the system of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), wherein the target position (“desired end position and orientation” [0036]; Woodside) is associated with a specific engraving region (“working area can be defined by the extents of positions in which material 140 can be worked by the CNC machine 100” [0039]; Shapiro) on a surface (upper surface of part 90, Fig. 8; Troy) of the workpiece (part 90, Fig. 8; Troy) that is processed when the laser-engraving head (“head 160 typically is a laser-cutting head, but can be a movable head of any type” [0037]) is in the target position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Du et al. (US 20190168385 A1) discloses a robot arm calibration device. Ellman et al. (US 20230255699 A1) discloses a navigation system for tracking optical markers 156 attached to a robotic arm. Scholan (US 20170367774 A1) discloses optical position sensors 49 on a surgical robotic arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761