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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 remain pending. Claims 1, and 6-7 have been amended. Claims 11-12 have been added.
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, 4, and 6-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakai (US 20150345932 A1) in view Ooba et al (US 20200164512 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Wakai and Ooba respectively)
Regarding Claims 1, and 6-7, Wakai teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium recording thereon a marker position registration program that causes a computer to function as (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0122-0123, the system program is interpreted as a marker position registration program, which is stored in the storage unit/non-transitory computer readable medium), a marker position registration device (See at least Wakai Paragraph 0089 and Figure 1, the coordinate measuring device is interpreted as the marker position registration device, which performs the functions by executing a processing device), a marker position registration method to be implemented by a processor (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0012, 0089, and Figure 1, the coordinate measuring device includes a processing device to implement a marker position registration method), the marker position registration method comprising the steps of:
a display control unit that causes an input form to be displayed (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0117, 0119, 0172, and Figure 18, the measurement point coordinate display field is interpreted as an input form), the input form receiving coordinates from a robot coordinate system corresponding to a specific portion of an industrial robot when the specific portion is moved to a specific position on a marker to be input in association with a position identifier for specifying the specific position which is assigned to the marker (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0132, 0142-0143, 0160, 0168, 0170, 0177, 0184-0188, 0307, and Figures 9b, 17, and 21-22, the input form/measurement point coordinate display field receives coordinates from a robot/device coordinate system corresponding to the contact part/specific portion of the probe on the robot arm when the contact part/specific portion is moved to a specific/measurement position on a marker/measurement target to be input in association with a position identifier for specifying the specific/measurement position), wherein the specific position comprises at least one portion of the marker (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0142-0143, 0184-0188, and Figures 9b, and 21-22, the specific/measurement position comprises a portion of the marker/measurement target)…; and
a registration unit that registers the specific position in the robot coordinate system on the basis of a content input to the input form (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0132, 0160, 0168, 0177, 0187-0188, 0307, and Figure 22, the coordinates of the specific/measurement position are confirmed/registered in the robot/device coordinate system based on the content input to the input form/measurement point coordinate display field).
Wakai fails to disclose the marker includes at least an identifiable marking, wherein
the identifiable marking is configured to prevent an erroneous registration when the registration unit registers the specific position.
However, Ooba teaches the marker includes at least an identifiable marking (See at least Ooba Paragraphs 0035-0036, 0045-0046, and Figure 2, the object/marker includes an identifiable marking/pattern) wherein
the identifiable marking is configured to prevent an erroneous registration when the registration unit registers the specific position (See at least Ooba Paragraphs 0034-0036, 0045-0048, and Figure 2, the position of the identifiable marking in the robot coordinate system when contacted by the robot is stored and used for calibration, which is interpreted as preventing erroneous registration when the specific position is registered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Wakai with Ooba to have the marker include at least an identifiable marking that is configured to prevent an erroneous registration when the registration unit registers the specific position. This modification, as taught by Ooba, would allow the system to calibrate the robot coordinate system by having the robot contact the identifiable marking and store the position coordinates in the robot coordinate system (See at least Ooba Paragraphs 0034-0036, 0045-0048, and Figure 2), which would improve the accuracy of the robot.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Wakai teaches the specific position includes positions individually corresponding to three or more portions included in the marker (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0142-0143, 0184-0188 and Figures 9b and 22, the specific/measurement positions include four portions on the marker/measurement target).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Wakai teaches a marker for use in the marker position registration method according to claim 7 (See at least Wakai Paragraph 0091 and Figure 2, the measurement target is a marker for use in the marker position registration method).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Wakai fails to disclose the specific position on the marker is a predetermined portion of the identifiable marking.
However, Ooba teaches the specific position on the marker is a predetermined portion of the identifiable marking (See at least Ooba Paragraphs 0035-0036, 0045-0046, and Figure 2, the specific position which is contacted by the robot is a predetermined portion of the identifiable marking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakai with Ooba to have the specific position on the marker be a predetermined portion of the identifiable marking. This modification, as taught by Ooba, would allow the system to calibrate the robot coordinate system by having the robot contact the identifiable marking and store the position coordinates in the robot coordinate system (See at least Ooba Paragraphs 0034-0036, 0045-0048, and Figure 2), which would improve the accuracy of the robot.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Wakai fails to disclose the identifiable marking is configured to prevent the erroneous registration in an axial direction.
However, Ooba teaches the identifiable marking is configured to prevent the erroneous registration in an axial direction (See at least Ooba Paragraphs 0034-0036, 0045-0048, and Figure 2, the position of the identifiable marking when contacted by the robot is stored and used for calibrating the robot coordinate system, which is interpreted as preventing erroneous registration in the axial direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakai with Ooba to have the identifiable marking be configured to prevent an erroneous registration in an axial direction. This modification, as taught by Ooba, would allow the system to calibrate the robot coordinate system by having the robot contact the identifiable marking and store the position coordinates in the robot coordinate system (See at least Ooba Paragraphs 0034-0036, 0045-0048, and Figure 2), which would improve the accuracy of the robot.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakai in view of Ooba, and in further view of Namiki et al (US 20240308061 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Namiki)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Wakai fails to disclose a marker identifier for specifying the marker is further assigned to the marker, and
the input form is further provided with an item to which the marker identifier is to be input in association with the position identifier.
However, Namiki teaches a marker identifier for specifying the marker is further assigned to the marker (See at least Namiki Paragraphs 0056-0059, and Figure 9, the marker includes a marker identifier), and
the input form is further provided with an item to which the marker identifier is to be input in association with the position identifier (See at least Namiki Paragraphs 0056-0059, and Figure 9, the marker identifier is input in “224” of Figure 9 in association with the position identifiers “221-222”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakai with Namiki to have the input form be provided with an item to which the marker identifier is to be input in association with the position identifier. This modification, as taught by Namiki, would allow the user to see position identifier for each marker when there is a plurality of markers, which would improve the accuracy of the system (See at least Namiki Paragraphs 0049, 0056-0059, and Figures 6 and 9).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Wakai teaches the specific position includes positions individually corresponding to a plurality of portions (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0142-0143, 0184-0188 and Figures 9b and 22, the specific/measurement positions include four portions on the marker/measurement target)…
Modified Wakai fails to disclose the specific position includes positions corresponding to a plurality of portions… in a plurality of the markers.
However, Namiki teaches this limitation (See at least Namiki Paragraphs 0047, 0049 and Figures 4 and 6, there are a plurality of markers, each with a plurality of portions/dots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakai with Namiki to have the specific position include positions corresponding to a plurality of portions in a plurality of the markers. This modification, as taught by Namiki, would improve the accuracy of the system by increasing the number of markers to be measured and recognized (See at least Namiki Paragraph 0049).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakai in view of Ooba, and in further view of Stenbacka et al (US 20220168902 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Stenbacka)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Wakai teaches the marker position registration program further causes the computer to function as:
a photographing unit that photographs an image including a work area of the industrial robot and the marker (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0095-0096, 0107, 0307, and Figure 2, the imaging unit photographs an image of the work area and the marker/measurement target);
a detection unit that detects the marker for which the specific position is registered by the registration unit on the basis of the image photographed by the photographing unit (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0095-0096, 0107, 0123, 0132-0133, and Figure 2, the measurement target/marker is detected by the control unit/detection unit based on the image);
Modified Wakai fails to explicitly disclose an arithmetic determination unit that arithmetically determines, on the basis of the specific position in the detected marker in each of a camera coordinate system based on the photographing unit and a marker coordinate system based on the detected marker, a conversion formula for performing coordinate conversion between the camera coordinate system and the marker coordinate system.
However, Stenbacka teaches arithmetically determines, on the basis of the specific position in the detected marker in each of a camera coordinate system based on the photographing unit and a marker coordinate system based on the detected marker, a conversion formula for performing coordinate conversion between the camera coordinate system and the marker coordinate system (See at least Stenbacka Paragraph 0046, the image of the marker is used to determine a conversion formula between the sensor/camera coordinate system and the marker coordinate system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakai with Stenbacka to have an arithmetic determination unit that arithmetically determines, on the basis of the specific position in the detected marker in each of a camera coordinate system based on the photographing unit and a marker coordinate system based on the detected marker, a conversion formula for performing coordinate conversion between the camera coordinate system and the marker coordinate system. This modification, as taught by Stenbacka, would allow the coordinates from one coordinate system to be transformed into coordinates in the other coordinate system, which provides a user-friendly method for calibration that enhances accuracy (See at least Stenbacka Paragraphs 0009 and 0046).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakai in view of Ooba, and in further view of Pannekamp et al (US 20240078698 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Pannekamp)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Wakai fails to disclose the marking is machine readable.
However, Pannekamp teaches the marking is machine readable (See at least Pannekamp Paragraphs 0010, and 0022-0023, specific information is read by the processing unit from the marking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakai with Pannekamp to have the marking be machine readable. This modification, as taught by Pannekamp, would allow the processing unit to read out specific information related to the marker from the marking, such as identification ID and pose (See at least Pannekamp Paragraphs 0010, and 0022-0023), which would improve the awareness of the system.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Wakai teaches the content comprises:
coordinates for each of the one or more specific positions (See at least Wakai Paragraphs 0177-0178, 0187-0188, 0307, and Figure 22, the coordinates of the specific/measurement position are confirmed/registered in the robot/device coordinate system based on the content input to the input form/measurement point coordinate display field).
Modified Wakai fails to disclose that the content comprises:
one or more specific positions on the marker determined by recognizing one or more position identifiers on the marker.
However, Ooba teaches one or more specific positions on the marker determined by recognizing one or more position identifiers on the marker (See at least Ooba 0035-0036, 0042-0043 and Figure 2, the specific position on the marker is determined by recognizing a position identifier/pattern on the marker).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakai with Ooba to have the content comprise one or more position identifiers on the marker. This modification, as taught by Ooba, would allow the robot controller to recognize the position data of the object/marker based on the data from the sensor (See at least Ooba 0035-0036, 0042-0043 and Figure 2), which would improve the awareness of the robot controller.
Modified Wakai fails to disclose that the content comprises:
a marker identification determined by recognizing a unique identification image on the marker,
However, Pannekamp teaches a marker identification determined by recognizing a unique identification image on the marker (See at least Pannekamp Paragraph 0023 and Figures 1-2, the marker is identified by recognizing a unique identification number/image on the marker),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakai with Pannekamp to have the content comprise a marker identification determined by recognizing a unique identification image on the marker. This modification, as taught by Pannekamp, would allow the system to identify the marker (See at least Pannekamp Paragraphs 0023, and Figure 2), which would improve the awareness of the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the independent claims to include the limitation “the identifiable marking is configured to prevent an erroneous registration when the registration unit registers the specific position.”. This limitation is taught by newly added reference Ooba, which teaches an identifiable marking configured to prevent an erroneous registration when the registration unit registers the specific position. The identifiable marking is used for the robot to contact the marker, and the position of the contact is stored in the robot coordinate system. The stored position is then used to calibrate the robot coordinate system. Therefore, claims 1 and 6-7 still stand rejected under 103.
Regarding newly added claim 11, Ooba also teaches the specific position is a predetermined portion of the identifiable marking, as the robot contacts a predetermined portion of the identifiable marking. Regarding newly added claim 12, the identifiable marking prevents erroneous registration in an axial direction as the position is stored in the robot coordinate system, and used to calibrate the robot coordinate system, which includes axial directions.
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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657