DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on March 27th, 2026. Claims 1-23 are currently pending and examined below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the Claims, filed March 27th, 2026, Have been entered. Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21-22 are as previously presented and pending, and claims 3-5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 20, and 23 are original, unamended, and pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on 03/27/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0118894 A1 ("Eldridge") in view of US 10926414 B2 ("Huang") in further view of US 2021/0065356 A1 ("Fisher").
Regarding claim 1, Eldridge teaches a method for calibrating a tool center point (TCP) of a robotic welding system, the method comprising (Eldridge: ¶ 0006, “An embodiment of the present invention may further comprise a computerized method for calculating a tool frame tool center point relative to a wrist-frame of a robot for a tool attached at a wrist of the robot using a camera…”, ¶ 0033, “The robot manipulator is typically made up of two subsections, the body and arm 108 and the wrist 110. A tool 112 used by a robot 102 to perform desired tasks is typically attached at the wrist 110 of the robot manipulator 102.”, ¶ 0102, “FIGS. 9A-C show images 900,910,920 of example Metal-Inert Gas (MIG) welding torches. FIG. 9A is an example image of a first type 900 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9B is an example image of a second type 910 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9C is an example image of a third type 920 of a MIG welding torch tool.”):
the plurality of images containing at least a portion of a protrusion extending from a tip of a weldhead of the robotic welding system (Eldridge: Figures 11A-C, ¶ 0102, “While welding torches have the same basic parts ( e.g., neck 902, gas cup 904, and wire 906), the actual shape and material of the parts 902, 904, 906 may vary significantly, which can make image processing difficult.”. The cited figures and passage shows that the protrusion extending from the weldhead (i.e. the welding wire) is included in the images captured by the camera.),
wherein the weldhead is attached to a robot arm of the robotic welding system (Eldridge: ¶ 0033, “The robot manipulator is typically made up of two subsections, the body and arm 108 and the wrist 110. A tool 112 used by a robot 102 to perform desired tasks is typically attached at the wrist 110 of the robot manipulator 102.”, ¶ 0102, “FIGS. 9A-C show images 900,910,920 of example Metal-Inert Gas (MIG) welding torches. FIG. 9A is an example image of a first type 900 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9B is an example image of a second type 910 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9C is an example image of a third type 920 of a MIG welding torch tool. While welding torches have the same basic parts ( e.g., neck 902, gas cup 904, and wire 906), the actual shape and material of the parts 902, 904, 906 may vary significantly, which can make image processing difficult.”. The cited passages show that the tool can be a welder and said welder is attached to a robotic arm.);
(b) identifying by a controller of the robotic welding system the protrusion extending from the weldhead in the plurality of images (Eldridge: ¶ 0109, “Usually the TCP of the tool 1102 is defined to be where the wire exits the nozzle 1124, so in step 4 of the process for finding the TCP in the camera image 1000, the algorithm is really searching for the end of the gas cup of the tool 1124. For some embodiments, the TCP may alternatively be defined to be the actual end of the torch tool 1102 at the tip of the wire 1126.”. The cited passage shows that the welding wire can be identified instead of the end of the gas cap.);
(c) defining by the controller a longitudinal axis of the protrusion based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images (Eldridge: Figure 11B, ¶ 0109, “FIG. 11B is an example image 1110 showing the sub-process for step 3 of refining the orientation 1116 of the tool 1102 by searching for the sides 1112 of the tool 1102 in the process for locating the TCP (1124 or 1126) of the tool 1102 on the camera image 1000. Step 3 to find a refined orientation 1116 of the tool 1102 of the process for finding the TCP (1124 or 1126) in the camera image 1000 is necessary because the neck of the torch tool 1102 may cause the fitted ellipse 1104 to have a slightly different orientation (i.e., rough orientation 1114) than the nozzle of the tool 1102.”. As can be seen from the cited figure and passage, this step involves finding a line that passes through the TCP that defines the orientation of the tool. One of ordinary skill in the art would see from the graphical representation in Figure 11B that this is a longitudinal axis.);
and (d) identifying by the controller a location of the weldhead based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images and the defined longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Eldridge: ¶ 0109, “FIG. 11C is an example image 1120 showing the sub-process for step 4 of searching 1122 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) at the end of tool 1102 in the overall process for locating the TCP (1124 or 1126) of the tool 1102 on the camera image 1000. The search 1122 to the end of the tool 1102 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) may be performed by searching along the refined tool orientation 1116 for the TCP (1124 or 1126).”).
Eldridge does not teach (a) receiving a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors of the robotic welding system,
and wherein the plurality of image sensors is attached to the robot arm;
and that the location of the weldhead is a location in three-dimensional space.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (a) receiving a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors of the robotic welding system (Huang: Column 2 lines 45-57, “As shown in FIG. 1, the system 1 for calibrating tool center point of robot includes a first image sensor 11, a second image sensor 12, and a controller 13. In an embodiment, the first image sensor 11 and the second image sensor 12 may be a camera or other similar devices.”, Column 9 lines 59-67 – Column 10 lines 1-10, “As shown in FIG. 7, the method of the system 1 for calibrating tool center point of robot includes the following steps. Step S71: Providing a first image sensor 11 having a first image central axis A. Step S72: Providing a second image sensor 12 having a second image central axis B not parallel to the first image central axis A and intersecting the first image central axis A at an intersection point I. Step S73: Controlling a robot R to repeatedly move the tool center point TCP of the tool T thereof between the first image central axis A and the second image central axis B. Step S74: Recording a calibration point including the coordinates of the joints J1-J 6 of the robot R when the tool center point TCP overlaps the intersection point I. Step S75: Repeating the above steps to generate a plurality of the calibration points. Step S76: Calculating the coordinate of the tool center point TCP according to the calibration points.”. The cited passages show that a plurality of cameras are used and each camera captures an image of the tool at different points.),
and that the location of the weldhead is a location in three-dimensional space (Huang: Column 8 lines 18-27, “After that, the coordinate (Tx, Ty, Tz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system of the flange facing F, and the coordinate (Px, Py, Pz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system (xR, yR, zR) of the robot R can be obtained. Finally, the calibration process of the tool center point TCP is finished.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge with plurality of cameras that take a plurality of images and the location of the weldhead being 3D taught in Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have been obvious to try. The use of a three-dimensional pose of a robot is used commonly to control robots in a variety of applications and it is necessary to know the position and orientation of the tool so that the robot can properly carry out its task. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities and knowledge to recognize this and implement such considerations. No inventive effort would be required. Furthermore, the use of multiple cameras with differing viewpoints is a common method to get three-dimensional information from images. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities and knowledge to implement multiple cameras to get three-dimensional information from the capture images. No inventive effort would be required.
Eldridge in view of Huang does not teach and wherein the plurality of image sensors is attached to the robot arm.
Fisher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and wherein the plurality of image sensors is attached to the robot arm (Fisher: Figures 2A-B, ¶ 0043, “FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate an example robot 120 according to an example embodiment. Robot 120 may include a body 126, an end effector 122 holding a tool 123, and a camera 124.”. The cited passage and figures clearly show that the camera is couples to the end-effector and tool of the robot.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method taught in Eldridge in view of Huang with and wherein the plurality of image sensors is attached to the robot arm taught in Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results. Both Eldridge and Huang teach the use of imaging devices to capture images of the tool of the robot, so modifying the system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang such that the imaging device is coupled to the end-effector and tool as taught in Fisher would not change or introduce new functionality. Furthermore, such a modification only requires changing the location of a known sensor. No inventive effort would have been required.
Regarding claim 2, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher teaches wherein the plurality of image sensors comprises a pair of cameras disposed on the weldhead and arranged stereoscopically in relation to the weldhead (Huang: Figure 4, Column 9 lines 59-67 , “As shown in FIG. 7, the method of the system 1 for calibrating tool center point of robot includes the following steps. Step S71: Providing a first image sensor 11 having a first image central axis A. Step S72: Providing a second image sensor 12 having a second image central axis B not parallel to the first image central axis A and intersecting the first image central axis A at an intersection point I.”, Fisher: Figures 2A-B, ¶ 0043, “IGS. 2A and 2B illustrate an example robot 120 according to an example embodiment. Robot 120 may include a body 126, an end effector 122 holding a tool 123, and a camera 124.”).
Eldridge in view of Huang teaches a method of calibrating the tool center position of a robotic welding system using camera stereoscopically arranged in relation to the weldhead. Fisher teaches wherein the camera is disposed on the weldhead. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have attached the stereoscopically arranged cameras taught in Eldridge in view of Huang to the weldhead of the robot as taught in Fisher. Furthermore, such a modification would require simply changing the location of the cameras, a task well within the technological capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Such a modification would not have change or introduced new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher teaches wherein the protrusion comprises a welding wire (Eldridge: Figures 11A-C, ¶ 0102, “While welding torches have the same basic parts ( e.g., neck 902, gas cup 904, and wire 906), the actual shape and material of the parts 902, 904, 906 may vary significantly, which can make image processing difficult.”, ¶ 0109, “Usually the TCP of the tool 1102 is defined to be where the wire exits the nozzle 1124, so in step 4 of the process for finding the TCP in the camera image 1000, the algorithm is really searching for the end of the gas cup of the tool 1124. For some embodiments, the TCP may alternatively be defined to be the actual end of the torch tool 1102 at the tip of the wire 1126.”).
Regarding claim 9, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher teaches wherein (d) comprises identifying a pose in 3D space of the weldhead (Eldridge: Eldridge: ¶ 0074, “For some tools and processes, finding only the TCP relationship to the wrist frame is adequate. For example, if a touch probe extends directly along the joint axis of the last joint (i.e., the wrist), the orientation of the tool may be assumed to be equal to the orientation of the wrist.”, ¶ 0075, “One method of finding the tool orientation is to move the tool into a known orientation in the world coordinate frame. The wrist pose may then be recorded and the relative orientation between the tool and the wrist may be computed.”, Huang: Column 8 lines 18-27, “After that, the coordinate (Tx, Ty, Tz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system of the flange facing F, and the coordinate (Px, Py, Pz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system (xR, yR, zR) of the robot R can be obtained. Finally, the calibration process of the tool center point TCP is finished.” The two refences in combination clearly teach determining the 3D pose of the weldhead.).
Regarding claim 19, Eldridge teaches a system for calibrating a tool center point (TCP) of a robotic welding system comprising a weldhead attached to a robot arm, the system comprising (Eldridge: ¶ 0006, “An embodiment of the present invention may further comprise a computerized method for calculating a tool frame tool center point relative to a wrist-frame of a robot for a tool attached at a wrist of the robot using a camera…”, ¶ 0033, “The robot manipulator is typically made up of two subsections, the body and arm 108 and the wrist 110. A tool 112 used by a robot 102 to perform desired tasks is typically attached at the wrist 110 of the robot manipulator 102.”, ¶ 0102, “FIGS. 9A-C show images 900,910,920 of example Metal-Inert Gas (MIG) welding torches. FIG. 9A is an example image of a first type 900 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9B is an example image of a second type 910 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9C is an example image of a third type 920 of a MIG welding torch tool.”. The cited passages clearly teach that a weldhead is attached to a robot arm.):
a processor (Eldridge: ¶ 0134, “The computer may have computer accessible memory (e.g., hard drive, flash drive, RAM, etc.) to store information and or programs needed to implement the algorithms/processes to find the tool-frame relative to the wrist-frame of the robot. The computer may send commands to and receive data from the robot and robot controller as necessary to find then relative tool-frame.”);
a non-transitory memory (Eldridge: ¶ 0134, “The computer may have computer accessible memory (e.g., hard drive, flash drive, RAM, etc.) to store information and or programs needed to implement the algorithms/processes to find the tool-frame relative to the wrist-frame of the robot.”);
and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor (Eldridge: ¶ 0134, “The computer may have computer accessible memory (e.g., hard drive, flash drive, RAM, etc.) to store information and or programs needed to implement the algorithms/processes to find the tool-frame relative to the wrist-frame of the robot.”):
the plurality of images containing at least a portion of a protrusion extending from a tip of the weldhead (Eldridge: Figures 11A-C, ¶ 0102, “While welding torches have the same basic parts ( e.g., neck 902, gas cup 904, and wire 906), the actual shape and material of the parts 902, 904, 906 may vary significantly, which can make image processing difficult.”. The cited figures and passage shows that the protrusion extending from the weldhead (i.e. the welding wire) is included in the images captured by the camera.);
identifies the protrusion extending from the weldhead in the plurality of images (Eldridge: ¶ 0109, “Usually the TCP of the tool 1102 is defined to be where the wire exits the nozzle 1124, so in step 4 of the process for finding the TCP in the camera image 1000, the algorithm is really searching for the end of the gas cup of the tool 1124. For some embodiments, the TCP may alternatively be defined to be the actual end of the torch tool 1102 at the tip of the wire 1126.”. The cited passage shows that the welding wire can be identified instead of the end of the gas cap.);
defines a longitudinal axis of the protrusion based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images (Eldridge: Figure 11B, ¶ 0109, “FIG. 11B is an example image 1110 showing the sub-process for step 3 of refining the orientation 1116 of the tool 1102 by searching for the sides 1112 of the tool 1102 in the process for locating the TCP (1124 or 1126) of the tool 1102 on the camera image 1000. Step 3 to find a refined orientation 1116 of the tool 1102 of the process for finding the TCP (1124 or 1126) in the camera image 1000 is necessary because the neck of the torch tool 1102 may cause the fitted ellipse 1104 to have a slightly different orientation (i.e., rough orientation 1114) than the nozzle of the tool 1102.”. As can be seen from the cited figure and passage, this step involves finding a line that passes through the TCP that defines the orientation of the tool. One of ordinary skill in the art would see from the graphical representation in Figure 11B that this is a longitudinal axis.);
and identifies a location space of the weldhead based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images and the defined longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Eldridge: ¶ 0109, “FIG. 11C is an example image 1120 showing the sub-process for step 4 of searching 1122 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) at the end of tool 1102 in the overall process for locating the TCP (1124 or 1126) of the tool 1102 on the camera image 1000. The search 1122 to the end of the tool 1102 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) may be performed by searching along the refined tool orientation 1116 for the TCP (1124 or 1126).”).
Eldridge does not teach receives a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors attached to the robot arm,
and that the location of the weldhead is a location in three-dimensional space.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor, receives a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors (Huang: Column 2 lines 45-57, “As shown in FIG. 1, the system 1 for calibrating tool center point of robot includes a first image sensor 11, a second image sensor 12, and a controller 13. In an embodiment, the first image sensor 11 and the second image sensor 12 may be a camera or other similar devices.”, Column 9 lines 59-67 – Column 10 lines 1-10, “As shown in FIG. 7, the method of the system 1 for calibrating tool center point of robot includes the following steps. Step S71: Providing a first image sensor 11 having a first image central axis A. Step S72: Providing a second image sensor 12 having a second image central axis B not parallel to the first image central axis A and intersecting the first image central axis A at an intersection point I. Step S73: Controlling a robot R to repeatedly move the tool center point TCP of the tool T thereof between the first image central axis A and the second image central axis B. Step S74: Recording a calibration point including the coordinates of the joints J1-J 6 of the robot R when the tool center point TCP overlaps the intersection point I. Step S75: Repeating the above steps to generate a plurality of the calibration points. Step S76: Calculating the coordinate of the tool center point TCP according to the calibration points.”. The cited passages show that a plurality of cameras are used and each camera captures an image of the tool at different points.),
and that the location of the weldhead is a location in three-dimensional space (Huang: Column 8 lines 18-27, “After that, the coordinate (Tx, Ty, Tz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system of the flange facing F, and the coordinate (Px, Py, Pz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system (xR, yR, zR) of the robot R can be obtained. Finally, the calibration process of the tool center point TCP is finished.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for calibrating the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge with plurality of cameras that take a plurality of images and the location of the weldhead being 3D taught in Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have been obvious to try. The use of a three-dimensional pose of a robot is used commonly to control robots in a variety of applications and it is necessary to know the position and orientation of the tool so that the robot can properly carry out its task. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities and knowledge to recognize this and implement such considerations. No inventive effort would be required. Furthermore, the use of multiple cameras with differing viewpoints is a common method to get three-dimensional information from images. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities and knowledge to implement multiple cameras to get three-dimensional information from the capture images. No inventive effort would be required.
Eldridge in view of Huang does not teach a plurality of image sensors attached to the robot arm.
Fisher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a plurality of image sensors attached to the robot arm (Fisher: Figures 2A-B, ¶ 0043, “IGS. 2A and 2B illustrate an example robot 120 according to an example embodiment. Robot 120 may include a body 126, an end effector 122 holding a tool 123, and a camera 124.”. The cited passage and figures clearly show that the camera is couples to the end-effector and tool of the robot.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for calibrating a tool center point of a robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang with a plurality of image sensors attached to the robot arm taught in Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results. Both Eldridge and Huang teach the use of imaging devices to capture images of the tool of the robot, sop modifying the system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang such that the imaging device is coupled to the end-effector and tool as taught in Fisher would not change or introduce new functionality. Furthermore, such a modification only requires changing the location of a known sensor. No inventive effort would have been required.
Regarding claim 23, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher teaches wherein the application, when executed by the processor: identifies a location in three-dimensional (3D) space of the weldhead based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images and the defined longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Eldridge: ¶ 0109, “FIG. 11C is an example image 1120 showing the sub-process for step 4 of searching 1122 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) at the end of tool 1102 in the overall process for locating the TCP (1124 or 1126) of the tool 1102 on the camera image 1000. The search 1122 to the end of the tool 1102 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) may be performed by searching along the refined tool orientation 1116 for the TCP (1124 or 1126).”, Huang: Column 8 lines 18-27, “After that, the coordinate (Tx, Ty, Tz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system of the flange facing F, and the coordinate (Px, Py, Pz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system (xR, yR, zR) of the robot R can be obtained. Finally, the calibration process of the tool center point TCP is finished.”).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0118894 A1 ("Eldridge") in view of US 10926414 B2 ("Huang") in further view of US 2021/0065356 A1 ("Fisher") in further view of US 2018/0154518 A1 ("Rossano")
Regarding claim 3, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein (c) comprises identifying a trajectory in 3D space of the longitudinal axis of the protrusion.
Rossano, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (Rossano: ¶ 0047, “The first path 164 can correspond to a predetermined path the TCP 162 of the robot 106, such as, for example a path the robot 106 is planned or selected to take either before or during the operation of the robot 106, and can be depicted by the GUI 136 on the display 124 in a variety of manners.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher with the trajectory planning taught in Rossano with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have been obvious to try. To facilitate the automation of a robotic system configured to carry out a task, it is necessary to define the robot’s trajectory in space. This is done so that the robot can move from a starting position to an ending position, avoid obstacles, or when the task itself involves following a path (i.e., welding). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities and knowledge to recognize the necessity of trajectory planning and be able to implement it in the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher. No inventive effort would have been required.
Regarding claim 10, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein the plurality of image sensors comprises at least a portion of a local sensor unit or a global sensor unit of the robotic welding system.
Rossano, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the plurality of image sensors comprises at least a portion of a local sensor unit or a global sensor unit of the robotic welding system (Rossano: ¶ 0023, “Optionally, the robot station 102 can also include one or more sensors 114 that can be used in connection with observing the robot station 102, including the robot 106 and workpieces or parts on which the robot 106 and/or end effector 108 are performing work. Examples of such sensors 114 can include imaging capturing devices, microphones, position sensors, proximity sensors, accelerometers, motion sensors, and/or force sensors among other types of sensors and sensing devices.”. As stated in the cited passage the robot can be configured to use any number of the listed sensors.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher with the sensor unit comprising a plurality of sensors including image sensors taught in Rossano. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the resulting combine system would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining additional sensor information. All of the sensors listed are known in the art and have known outputs. Furthermore, person of ordinary skill in the would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate any one or combination of these sensor with the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher and be able to make use of the data the sensors output. Using the additional sensors would not change the function of the robotic welding system or introduce new functionality. Using the sensors in the robotic welding system would not cause the sensors themselves to function differently. No inventive effort would have been required.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0118894 A1 ("Eldridge") in view of US 10926414 B2 ("Huang") in further view of US 2021/0065356 A1 ("Fisher") in further view of US 2011/0029132 A1 ("Nemmers").
Regarding claim 5, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein (b) comprises: (b1) annotating at least one of the plurality of images to indicate a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion located opposite the base of the protrusion identified in the plurality of images.
Nemmers, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein (b) comprises: (b1) annotating at least one of the plurality of images to indicate a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion located opposite the base of the protrusion identified in the plurality of images (Nemmers: Figure 12, ¶ 0064, “In order to teach the user tool for the tandem welding tool 200, four points (i.e. targets) 206, 208, 210, 212 need to be located in three dimension space, as shown in FIG. 11.”, ¶ 0066, “ A tool center point 214 based upon the wire 202 can be created from the direction of the reference line R1, the origin point 206 and a pre-defined distance (e.g. 17 mm) associated with the robotic tool. The process is repeated for the wire 204 using the points 210, 212 to generate reference line R2 and tool center point 216.”. As can be seen from the cited figure and passages, the base of the welding wire and the tip (defined as the TCP) are annotated on the image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher with the method of annotating an image of the protrusion taught in Nemmers with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method of identifying the base and tip of the protrusion can be done automatically and within seconds (Nemmers: ¶ 0091, “Specifically, a user tool adjustment can be completed in two to three seconds and the user frames are taught automatically.”).
Regarding claim 7, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein (d) comprises identifying the location in 3D space of the weldhead based on a first projection of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images, a second projection of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image, and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion.
Nemmers, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein (d) comprises identifying the location in 3D space of the weldhead based on a first projection of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images, a second projection of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image, and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion (Nemmers: Figure 12, ¶ 0064, “As more clearly shown in FIG. 10, while the robotic tool is positioned within the field of view of the image generating device, a portion of the robotic tool (i.e. parent tool) is initially located, as identified by an outline 205. In order to teach the user tool for the tandem welding tool 200, four points (i.e. targets) 206, 208, 210, 212 need to be located in three dimension space, as shown in FIG. 11. Specifically, while the robotic tool is in the first position, the processor 14 analyzes the first image to locate the first point 206 and an XYZ coordinate representing a position where a pre-defined view line passes through a calibration plane defined during the calibration step 102. As a non-limiting example, the XYZ coordinate of the view line intersection, the first point 206, and the known focal point of the image generating device 22 are each disposed along a first three dimensional line. The processor 14 then repeats the analysis to locate points 208, 210, 212 in a fashion similar to that described above for the point 206.”, ¶ 0065, “The robotic tool is then rotated and the process is repeated to re-locate the points 206, 208, 210, 212 in the second image of the robotic tool.”, ¶ 0066, “ A tool center point 214 based upon the wire 202 can be created from the direction of the reference line R1, the origin point 206 and a pre-defined distance (e.g. 17 mm) associated with the robotic tool. The process is repeated for the wire 204 using the points 210, 212 to generate reference line R2 and tool center point 216. A user tool frame can be calculated from the data points defined above. Specifically, a reference line R3 through the tool center points 214, 216 defines the X direction. The cross product of the reference line R1 and the reference line R3 defines the XZ plane. Since the origin point, the X axis, and the XZ plane are known, there is enough information to calculate the entire user tool (frame), as appreciate by one skilled in the art.”. The cited passages show that the 3D position of the weldhead is determined by using the position of the base of the welding wire, the tip of the welding wire, and the know length of the wire. Furthermore, the two images used are different from each other, as the robot has been rotated between the first and second images used. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that a 2D image is a projection of the 3D object captured by the imaging device.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher with the method of identifying the 3D location of the weldhead taught in Nemmers with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method of identifying 3D position of the weldhead can be done automatically and within seconds (Nemmers: ¶ 0091, “Specifically, a user tool adjustment can be completed in two to three seconds and the user frames are taught automatically.”).
Regarding claim 8, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein (d) comprises: (d1) triangulating a location in 3D space of a tip of the protrusion based on a first projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images and a second projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image;
and (d2) identifying the location of the tip of the weldhead based on the location in 3D space of the tip of the protrusion and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and the tip of the protrusion.
Nemmers, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein (d) comprises: (d1) triangulating a location in 3D space of a tip of the protrusion based on a first projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images and a second projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image (Nemmers: Figure 12, ¶ 0064, “As more clearly shown in FIG. 10, while the robotic tool is positioned within the field of view of the image generating device, a portion of the robotic tool (i.e. parent tool) is initially located, as identified by an outline 205. In order to teach the user tool for the tandem welding tool 200, four points (i.e. targets) 206, 208, 210, 212 need to be located in three dimension space, as shown in FIG. 11. Specifically, while the robotic tool is in the first position, the processor 14 analyzes the first image to locate the first point 206 and an XYZ coordinate representing a position where a pre-defined view line passes through a calibration plane defined during the calibration step 102. As a non-limiting example, the XYZ coordinate of the view line intersection, the first point 206, and the known focal point of the image generating device 22 are each disposed along a first three dimensional line. The processor 14 then repeats the analysis to locate points 208, 210, 212 in a fashion similar to that described above for the point 206.”, ¶ 0065, “The robotic tool is then rotated and the process is repeated to re-locate the points 206, 208, 210, 212 in the second image of the robotic tool.”. The cited passages show that the 3D position of the weldhead is determined by using the position of the base of the welding wire and the tip of the welding wire. Furthermore, the two images used are different from each other, as the robot has been rotated between the first and second images used. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that a 2D image is a projection of the 3D object captured by the imaging device.);
and (d2) identifying the location of the tip of the weldhead based on the location in 3D space of the tip of the protrusion and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and the tip of the protrusion (Nemmers: ¶ 0066, “ A tool center point 214 based upon the wire 202 can be created from the direction of the reference line R1, the origin point 206 and a pre-defined distance (e.g. 17 mm) associated with the robotic tool. The process is repeated for the wire 204 using the points 210, 212 to generate reference line R2 and tool center point 216.”. The cited passage clearly shows using the position of the base of the protrusion and the known length of the protrusion to determine the 3D position of the tip.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher with the method of identifying the 3D location of the weldhead taught in Nemmers with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method of identifying 3D position of the weldhead can be done automatically and within seconds (Nemmers: ¶ 0091, “Specifically, a user tool adjustment can be completed in two to three seconds and the user frames are taught automatically.”).
Regarding claim 20, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein the application, when executed by the processor: annotates at least one of the plurality of images to indicate a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion located opposite the base of the protrusion identified in the plurality of images.
Nemmers, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the application, when executed by the processor: annotates at least one of the plurality of images to indicate a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion located opposite the base of the protrusion identified in the plurality of images (Nemmers: Figure 12, ¶ 0064, “In order to teach the user tool for the tandem welding tool 200, four points (i.e. targets) 206, 208, 210, 212 need to be located in three dimension space, as shown in FIG. 11.”, ¶ 0066, “ A tool center point 214 based upon the wire 202 can be created from the direction of the reference line R1, the origin point 206 and a pre-defined distance (e.g. 17 mm) associated with the robotic tool. The process is repeated for the wire 204 using the points 210, 212 to generate reference line R2 and tool center point 216.”. As can be seen from the cited figure and passages, the base of the welding wire and the tip (defined as the TCP) are annotated on the image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for calibrating a TCP of a robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher with the method of annotating an image of the protrusion taught in Nemmers with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method of identifying the base and tip of the protrusion can be done automatically and within seconds (Nemmers: ¶ 0091, “Specifically, a user tool adjustment can be completed in two to three seconds and the user frames are taught automatically.”).
Regarding claim 22, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein the application, when executed by the processor: triangulates a location in 3D space of a tip of the protrusion based on a first projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images and a second projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image;
and identifies the location of the tip of the weldhead based on the location in 3D space of the tip of the protrusion and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and the tip of the protrusion.
Nemmers, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the application, when executed by the processor: triangulates a location in 3D space of a tip of the protrusion based on a first projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images and a second projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image (Nemmers: Figure 12, ¶ 0064, “As more clearly shown in FIG. 10, while the robotic tool is positioned within the field of view of the image generating device, a portion of the robotic tool (i.e. parent tool) is initially located, as identified by an outline 205. In order to teach the user tool for the tandem welding tool 200, four points (i.e. targets) 206, 208, 210, 212 need to be located in three dimension space, as shown in FIG. 11. Specifically, while the robotic tool is in the first position, the processor 14 analyzes the first image to locate the first point 206 and an XYZ coordinate representing a position where a pre-defined view line passes through a calibration plane defined during the calibration step 102. As a non-limiting example, the XYZ coordinate of the view line intersection, the first point 206, and the known focal point of the image generating device 22 are each disposed along a first three dimensional line. The processor 14 then repeats the analysis to locate points 208, 210, 212 in a fashion similar to that described above for the point 206.”, ¶ 0065, “The robotic tool is then rotated and the process is repeated to re-locate the points 206, 208, 210, 212 in the second image of the robotic tool.”. The cited passages show that the 3D position of the weldhead is determined by using the position of the base of the welding wire and the tip of the welding wire. Furthermore, the two images used are different from each other, as the robot has been rotated between the first and second images used. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that a 2D image is a projection of the 3D object captured by the imaging device.);
and identifies the location of the tip of the weldhead based on the location in 3D space of the tip of the protrusion and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and the tip of the protrusion (Nemmers: ¶ 0066, “ A tool center point 214 based upon the wire 202 can be created from the direction of the reference line R1, the origin point 206 and a pre-defined distance (e.g. 17 mm) associated with the robotic tool. The process is repeated for the wire 204 using the points 210, 212 to generate reference line R2 and tool center point 216.”. The cited passage clearly shows using the position of the base of the protrusion and the known length of the protrusion to determine the 3D position of the tip.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for calibrating the TCP of a robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher with the method of identifying the 3D location of the weldhead taught in Nemmers with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method of identifying 3D position of the weldhead can be done automatically and within seconds (Nemmers: ¶ 0091, “Specifically, a user tool adjustment can be completed in two to three seconds and the user frames are taught automatically.”).
Claim(s) 6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0118894 A1 ("Eldridge") in view of US 10926414 B2 ("Huang") in further view of US 2021/0065356 A1 ("Fisher") in further view of US 2011/0029132 A1 ("Nemmers") in further view of US 6603870 B2 ("Bascle").
Regarding claim 6, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher in further view of Nemmers does not teach wherein (c) comprises: (c1) defining a first plane in a first image of the plurality of images based on the annotated base of the protrusion;
(c2) defining a second plane in a second image of the plurality of images based on the annotated tip of the protrusion;
and (c3) intersecting the first plane with the second plane to define the longitudinal axis of the protrusion.
Bascle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein (c) comprises: (c1) defining a first plane in a first image of the plurality of images based on the annotated base of the protrusion (Bascle: Column 9 lines 47-67, “Apparatus for positioning or aligning a biopsy needle for proper insertion into the body of a patient from a selected point on a surface of the body, so as to enter in a straight line passing through a designated target region within the body, in conjunction with an imaging system utilizing radiation from a first source position for deriving a first radiographic image on a first image plane of a portion of the body including a first image of the selected point and a first image of the target region, the first source position, the first image of the selected point, and the first image of the target region defining a first viewing plane .pi.,…”);
(c2) defining a second plane in a second image of the plurality of images based on the annotated tip of the protrusion (Bascle: Column 9 lines 47-67, “the imaging system utilizing radiation from a second source position for deriving a second radiographic image on a second image plane of the portion of the body, including a second image of the selected point and a second image of the target region, the second source position, the second image of the selected point, and the second image of the target region define a second viewing plane .pi..sup.1,…”);
and (c3) intersecting the first plane with the second plane to define the longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Bascle: Column 9 line 47 – Column 10 line 24, “…first measuring circle apparatus for establishing a first auxiliary plane at a first plane angle .THETA..sub.1 with respect to a selected set of coordinates and for constraining a pointer for moving rotatably about the selected point and within the first auxiliary plane to a first angle of inclination .phi..sub.1 relative to the set of coordinates such that a projection or extension of an image of the pointer on the first image plane passes through the first image of the target region; second measuring circle apparatus for establishing a second auxiliary plane at a second plane angle .THETA..sub.2 with respect to the selected set of coordinates, the second plane angle being different from the first plane angle such that the first and second auxiliary planes form an intersection line…”. The line created by the intersection of the two planes would define the longitudinal axis.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher in further view of Nemmers with the method of defining an axis from the intersection of two planes in two images taught in Bascle with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination of the robotic welding system and image plane intersection method would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining the line defined by the intersection of the two planes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to have combine the robotic welding apparatus with the image plane intersection method. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, even though the image plane intersection method uses the same point in both images, such a method could easily be configured to a different point in the second image and would not change the functionality of the method or introduce new functionality.
Regarding claim 21, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher in further view of Nemmers does not teach wherein the application, when executed by the processor: defines a first plane in a first image of the plurality of images based on the annotated base of the protrusion;
defines a second plane in a second image of the plurality of images based on the annotated tip of the protrusion;
and intersects the first plane with the second plane to define the longitudinal axis of the protrusion.
Bascle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the application, when executed by the processor: defines a first plane in a first image of the plurality of images based on the annotated base of the protrusion (Bascle: Column 9 lines 47-67, “Apparatus for positioning or aligning a biopsy needle for proper insertion into the body of a patient from a selected point on a surface of the body, so as to enter in a straight line passing through a designated target region within the body, in conjunction with an imaging system utilizing radiation from a first source position for deriving a first radiographic image on a first image plane of a portion of the body including a first image of the selected point and a first image of the target region, the first source position, the first image of the selected point, and the first image of the target region defining a first viewing plane .pi.,…”);
defines a second plane in a second image of the plurality of images based on the annotated tip of the protrusion (Bascle: Column 9 lines 47-67, “the imaging system utilizing radiation from a second source position for deriving a second radiographic image on a second image plane of the portion of the body, including a second image of the selected point and a second image of the target region, the second source position, the second image of the selected point, and the second image of the target region define a second viewing plane .pi..sup.1,…”);
and intersects the first plane with the second plane to define the longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Bascle: Column 9 lines 47 – Column 10 line 24, “…first measuring circle apparatus for establishing a first auxiliary plane at a first plane angle .THETA..sub.1 with respect to a selected set of coordinates and for constraining a pointer for moving rotatably about the selected point and within the first auxiliary plane to a first angle of inclination .phi..sub.1 relative to the set of coordinates such that a projection or extension of an image of the pointer on the first image plane passes through the first image of the target region; second measuring circle apparatus for establishing a second auxiliary plane at a second plane angle .THETA..sub.2 with respect to the selected set of coordinates, the second plane angle being different from the first plane angle such that the first and second auxiliary planes form an intersection line…”. The line created by the intersection of the two planes would define the longitudinal axis.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for calibrating the TCP of a robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher in further view of Nemmers with the method of defining an axis from the intersection of two planes in two images taught in Bascle with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination of the robotic welding system and image plane intersection method would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining the line defined by the intersection of the two planes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to have combine the robotic welding apparatus with the image plane intersection method. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, even though the image plane intersection method uses the same point in both images, such a method could easily be configured to a different point in the second image and would not change the functionality of the method or introduce new functionality.
Claim(s) 11 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0118894 A1 ("Eldridge") in view of US 10926414 B2 ("Huang") in further view of US 2024/0009748 A1 ("Kotera") in further view of US 2021/0065356 A1 ("Fisher").
Regarding claim 11, Eldridge teaches a robotic welding system for welding a part, the system comprising (Eldridge: ¶ 0033, “The robot manipulator is typically made up of two subsections, the body and arm 108 and the wrist 110. A tool 112 used by a robot 102 to perform desired tasks is typically attached at the wrist 110 of the robot manipulator 102.”, ¶ 0102, “FIGS. 9A-C show images 900,910,920 of example Metal-Inert Gas (MIG) welding torches. FIG. 9A is an example image of a first type 900 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9B is an example image of a second type 910 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9C is an example image of a third type 920 of a MIG welding torch tool.”):
a robot extending between a base and a terminal end of a robot arm (Eldridge: Figure 1 base 104 and wrist 110, ¶ 0033, “The robot manipulator is typically made up of two subsections, the body and arm 108 and the wrist 110. A tool 112 used by a robot 102 to perform desired tasks is typically attached at the wrist 110 of the robot manipulator 102.”. As can be seen from figure 1, the robot extends from a base 104 to a wrist 110 to which a tool 112 is attached to.);
a weldhead coupled to the terminal end of the robot, wherein the weldhead receives a protrusion (Eldridge: ¶ 0033, “The robot manipulator is typically made up of two subsections, the body and arm 108 and the wrist 110. A tool 112 used by a robot 102 to perform desired tasks is typically attached at the wrist 110 of the robot manipulator 102.”, ¶ 0102, “FIGS. 9A-C show images 900,910,920 of example Metal-Inert Gas (MIG) welding torches. FIG. 9A is an example image of a first type 900 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9B is an example image of a second type 910 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9C is an example image of a third type 920 of a MIG welding torch tool. While welding torches have the same basic parts ( e.g., neck 902, gas cup 904, and wire 906), the actual shape and material of the parts 902, 904, 906 may vary significantly, which can make image processing difficult.”. The cited passages show that the tool can be a welder and said welder has a wire extending from it.);
a sensor unit comprising an image sensor arranged whereby at least a portion of the weldhead is within a field of view of each of the plurality of image sensors (Eldridge: ¶ 0100, “The camera may be used to continuously capture an image of the target tool in real-time. Embodiments may store an image and/or images at desired times to perform calculations based on the stored image and/or images.”, ¶ 0102, “FIGS. 9A-C show images 900,910,920 of example Metal-Inert Gas (MIG) welding torches. FIG. 9A is an example image of a first type 900 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9B is an example image of a second type 910 of a MIG welding torch tool. FIG. 9C is an example image of a third type 920 of a MIG welding torch tool.”. The cited passages show that a camera is used to capture images of the tool and that this tool is a welder. The weldhead is clearly visible in the figures cited in the passage.);
and a controller in signal communication with the sensor unit, wherein the controller is configured to (Eldridge: ¶ 0134, “The computer may have computer accessible memory (e.g., hard drive, flash drive, RAM, etc.) to store information and or programs needed to implement the algorithms/processes to find the tool-frame relative to the wrist-frame of the robot. The computer may send commands to and receive data from the robot and robot controller as necessary to find then relative tool-frame.”):
the plurality of images containing at least a portion of the protrusion extending from a tip of the weldhead (Eldridge: Figures 11A-C, ¶ 0102, “While welding torches have the same basic parts ( e.g., neck 902, gas cup 904, and wire 906), the actual shape and material of the parts 902, 904, 906 may vary significantly, which can make image processing difficult.”. The cited figures and passage shows that the protrusion extending from the weldhead (i.e. the welding wire) is included in the images captured by the camera.);
identify the protrusion extending from the weldhead in the plurality of images (Eldridge: ¶ 0109, “Usually the TCP of the tool 1102 is defined to be where the wire exits the nozzle 1124, so in step 4 of the process for finding the TCP in the camera image 1000, the algorithm is really searching for the end of the gas cup of the tool 1124. For some embodiments, the TCP may alternatively be defined to be the actual end of the torch tool 1102 at the tip of the wire 1126.”. The cited passage shows that the welding wire can be identified instead of the end of the gas cap.);
define a longitudinal axis of the protrusion based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images (Eldridge: Figure 11B, ¶ 0109, “FIG. 11B is an example image 1110 showing the sub-process for step 3 of refining the orientation 1116 of the tool 1102 by searching for the sides 1112 of the tool 1102 in the process for locating the TCP (1124 or 1126) of the tool 1102 on the camera image 1000. Step 3 to find a refined orientation 1116 of the tool 1102 of the process for finding the TCP (1124 or 1126) in the camera image 1000 is necessary because the neck of the torch tool 1102 may cause the fitted ellipse 1104 to have a slightly different orientation (i.e., rough orientation 1114) than the nozzle of the tool 1102.”. As can be seen from the cited figure and passage, this step involves finding a line that passes through the TCP that defines the orientation of the tool. One of ordinary skill in the art would see from the graphical representation in Figure 11B that this is a longitudinal axis.);
and identify a location in space of the weldhead based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images and the defined longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Eldridge: ¶ 0109, “FIG. 11C is an example image 1120 showing the sub-process for step 4 of searching 1122 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) at the end of tool 1102 in the overall process for locating the TCP (1124 or 1126) of the tool 1102 on the camera image 1000. The search 1122 to the end of the tool 1102 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) may be performed by searching along the refined tool orientation 1116 for the TCP (1124 or 1126).”).
Eldridge does not teach receives a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors arranged along the robot arm or weldhead,
and that the location of the weldhead is a location in three-dimensional space.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor, receives a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors (Huang: Column 2 lines 45-57, “As shown in FIG. 1, the system 1 for calibrating tool center point of robot includes a first image sensor 11, a second image sensor 12, and a controller 13. In an embodiment, the first image sensor 11 and the second image sensor 12 may be a camera or other similar devices.”, Column 9 lines 59-67 – Column 10 lines 1-10, “As shown in FIG. 7, the method of the system 1 for calibrating tool center point of robot includes the following steps. Step S71: Providing a first image sensor 11 having a first image central axis A. Step S72: Providing a second image sensor 12 having a second image central axis B not parallel to the first image central axis A and intersecting the first image central axis A at an intersection point I. Step S73: Controlling a robot R to repeatedly move the tool center point TCP of the tool T thereof between the first image central axis A and the second image central axis B. Step S74: Recording a calibration point including the coordinates of the joints J1-J 6 of the robot R when the tool center point TCP overlaps the intersection point I. Step S75: Repeating the above steps to generate a plurality of the calibration points. Step S76: Calculating the coordinate of the tool center point TCP according to the calibration points.”. The cited passages show that a plurality of cameras are used and each camera captures an image of the tool at different points.),
and that the location of the weldhead is a location in three-dimensional space (Huang: Column 8 lines 18-27, “After that, the coordinate (Tx, Ty, Tz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system of the flange facing F, and the coordinate (Px, Py, Pz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system (xR, yR, zR) of the robot R can be obtained. Finally, the calibration process of the tool center point TCP is finished.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge with plurality of cameras that take a plurality of images and the location of the weldhead being 3D taught in Huang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have been obvious to try. The use of a three-dimensional pose of a robot is used commonly to control robots in a variety of applications and it is necessary to know the position and orientation of the tool so that the robot can properly carry out its task. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities and knowledge to recognize this and implement such considerations. No inventive effort would be required. Furthermore, the use of multiple cameras with differing viewpoints is a common method to get three-dimensional information from images. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities and knowledge to implement multiple cameras to get three-dimensional information from the capture images. No inventive effort would be required.
Eldridge in view of Huang does not teach a fixture for holding the part to be welded, and
a plurality of image sensors arranged along the robot arm or weldhead.
Kotera, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a fixture for holding the part to be welded (Kotera: Figure 1 jig 50, ¶ 0020, “…a jig 50 that holds a target object W to be welded.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang with the fixture for holding the part to be welded taught in Kotera with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is common to secure a work piece in a fixture before performing an operation on said work piece in many arts, not just in robotic applications. This is done to prevent the work piece from moving during the operation, either caused by the operation itself or the robot coming into contact with the work piece. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities and knowledge to have combine a fixture to hold the work piece with the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang. No inventive effort would have been required.
Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera does not teach a plurality of image sensors arranged along the robot arm or weldhead.
Fisher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a plurality of image sensors attached to the robot arm (Fisher: Figures 2A-B, ¶ 0043, “IGS. 2A and 2B illustrate an example robot 120 according to an example embodiment. Robot 120 may include a body 126, an end effector 122 holding a tool 123, and a camera 124.”. The cited passage and figures clearly show that the camera is couples to the end-effector and tool of the robot.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the system for welding a part taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera with a plurality of image sensors attached to the robot arm taught in Fisher with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results. Both Eldridge and Huang teach the use of imaging devices to capture images of the tool of the robot, sop modifying the system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera such that the imaging device is coupled to the end-effector and tool as taught in Fisher would not change or introduce new functionality. Furthermore, such a modification only requires changing the location of a known sensor. No inventive effort would have been required.
Regarding claim 16, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher teaches wherein the plurality of image sensors comprises a pair of cameras arranged stereoscopically in relation to the weldhead (Huang: Figure 4, Column 9 lines 59-67 , “As shown in FIG. 7, the method of the system 1 for calibrating tool center point of robot includes the following steps. Step S71: Providing a first image sensor 11 having a first image central axis A. Step S72: Providing a second image sensor 12 having a second image central axis B not parallel to the first image central axis A and intersecting the first image central axis A at an intersection point I.”).
Regarding claim 17, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher teaches wherein the controller is configured to: identify a pose in 3D space of the weldhead based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images and the defined longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Eldridge: ¶ 0074, “For some tools and processes, finding only the TCP relationship to the wrist frame is adequate. For example, if a touch probe extends directly along the joint axis of the last joint (i.e., the wrist), the orientation of the tool may be assumed to be equal to the orientation of the wrist.”, ¶ 0075, “One method of finding the tool orientation is to move the tool into a known orientation in the world coordinate frame. The wrist pose may then be recorded and the relative orientation between the tool and the wrist may be computed.”, ¶ 0109, “FIG. 11C is an example image 1120 showing the sub-process for step 4 of searching 1122 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) at the end of tool 1102 in the overall process for locating the TCP (1124 or 1126) of the tool 1102 on the camera image 1000. The search 1122 to the end of the tool 1102 for the TCP (1124 or 1126) may be performed by searching along the refined tool orientation 1116 for the TCP (1124 or 1126).”, Huang: Column 8 lines 18-27, “After that, the coordinate (Tx, Ty, Tz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system of the flange facing F, and the coordinate (Px, Py, Pz) of the tool center point TCP in relation to the coordinate system (xR, yR, zR) of the robot R can be obtained. Finally, the calibration process of the tool center point TCP is finished.” The two refences in combination clearly teach determining the 3D pose of the weldhead).
Regarding claim 18, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher teaches wherein the protrusion comprises a welding wire (Eldridge: Figures 11A-C, ¶ 0102, “While welding torches have the same basic parts ( e.g., neck 902, gas cup 904, and wire 906), the actual shape and material of the parts 902, 904, 906 may vary significantly, which can make image processing difficult.”, ¶ 0109, “Usually the TCP of the tool 1102 is defined to be where the wire exits the nozzle 1124, so in step 4 of the process for finding the TCP in the camera image 1000, the algorithm is really searching for the end of the gas cup of the tool 1124. For some embodiments, the TCP may alternatively be defined to be the actual end of the torch tool 1102 at the tip of the wire 1126.”).
Claim(s) 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0118894 A1 ("Eldridge") in view of US 10926414 B2 ("Huang") in further view of US 2024/0009748 A1 ("Kotera") in further view of US 2021/0065356 A1 ("Fisher") in further view of US 2011/0029132 A1 ("Nemmers").
Regarding claim 12, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: annotate at least one of the plurality of images to indicate a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion located opposite the base of the protrusion identified in the plurality of images.
Nemmers, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to: annotate at least one of the plurality of images to indicate a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion located opposite the base of the protrusion identified in the plurality of images (Nemmers: Figure 12, ¶ 0064, “In order to teach the user tool for the tandem welding tool 200, four points (i.e. targets) 206, 208, 210, 212 need to be located in three dimension space, as shown in FIG. 11.”, ¶ 0066, “ A tool center point 214 based upon the wire 202 can be created from the direction of the reference line R1, the origin point 206 and a pre-defined distance (e.g. 17 mm) associated with the robotic tool. The process is repeated for the wire 204 using the points 210, 212 to generate reference line R2 and tool center point 216.”. As can be seen from the cited figure and passages, the base of the welding wire and the tip (defined as the TCP) are annotated on the image.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher with the method of annotating an image of the protrusion taught in Nemmers with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method of identifying the base and tip of the protrusion can be done automatically and within seconds (Nemmers: ¶ 0091, “Specifically, a user tool adjustment can be completed in two to three seconds and the user frames are taught automatically.”).
Regarding claim 14, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: identify the location in 3D space of the weldhead based on a first projection of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images, a second projection of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image, and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion.
Nemmers, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the controller is configured to: identify the location in 3D space of the weldhead based on a first projection of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images, a second projection of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image, and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and a tip of the protrusion (Nemmers: Figure 12, ¶ 0064, “As more clearly shown in FIG. 10, while the robotic tool is positioned within the field of view of the image generating device, a portion of the robotic tool (i.e. parent tool) is initially located, as identified by an outline 205. In order to teach the user tool for the tandem welding tool 200, four points (i.e. targets) 206, 208, 210, 212 need to be located in three dimension space, as shown in FIG. 11. Specifically, while the robotic tool is in the first position, the processor 14 analyzes the first image to locate the first point 206 and an XYZ coordinate representing a position where a pre-defined view line passes through a calibration plane defined during the calibration step 102. As a non-limiting example, the XYZ coordinate of the view line intersection, the first point 206, and the known focal point of the image generating device 22 are each disposed along a first three dimensional line. The processor 14 then repeats the analysis to locate points 208, 210, 212 in a fashion similar to that described above for the point 206.”, ¶ 0065, “The robotic tool is then rotated and the process is repeated to re-locate the points 206, 208, 210, 212 in the second image of the robotic tool.”, ¶ 0066, “ A tool center point 214 based upon the wire 202 can be created from the direction of the reference line R1, the origin point 206 and a pre-defined distance (e.g. 17 mm) associated with the robotic tool. The process is repeated for the wire 204 using the points 210, 212 to generate reference line R2 and tool center point 216. A user tool frame can be calculated from the data points defined above. Specifically, a reference line R3 through the tool center points 214, 216 defines the X direction. The cross product of the reference line R1 and the reference line R3 defines the XZ plane. Since the origin point, the X axis, and the XZ plane are known, there is enough information to calculate the entire user tool (frame), as appreciate by one skilled in the art.”. The cited passages show that the 3D position of the weldhead is determined by using the position of the base of the welding wire, the tip of the welding wire, and the know length of the wire. Furthermore, the two images used are different from each other, as the robot has been rotated between the first and second images used. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that a 2D image is a projection of the 3D object captured by the imaging device.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher with the method of identifying the 3D location of the weldhead taught in Nemmers with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method of identifying 3D position of the weldhead can be done automatically and within seconds (Nemmers: ¶ 0091, “Specifically, a user tool adjustment can be completed in two to three seconds and the user frames are taught automatically.”).
Regarding claim 15, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: triangulate a location in 3D space of a tip of the protrusion based on a first projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images and a second projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image;
and identify the location of the tip of the weldhead based on the location in 3D space of the tip of the protrusion and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and the tip of the protrusion.
Nemmers, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to: triangulate a location in 3D space of a tip of the protrusion based on a first projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a first image of the plurality of images and a second projection of the tip of the protrusion captured in a second image of the plurality of images that is different from the first image (Nemmers: Figure 12, ¶ 0064, “As more clearly shown in FIG. 10, while the robotic tool is positioned within the field of view of the image generating device, a portion of the robotic tool (i.e. parent tool) is initially located, as identified by an outline 205. In order to teach the user tool for the tandem welding tool 200, four points (i.e. targets) 206, 208, 210, 212 need to be located in three dimension space, as shown in FIG. 11. Specifically, while the robotic tool is in the first position, the processor 14 analyzes the first image to locate the first point 206 and an XYZ coordinate representing a position where a pre-defined view line passes through a calibration plane defined during the calibration step 102. As a non-limiting example, the XYZ coordinate of the view line intersection, the first point 206, and the known focal point of the image generating device 22 are each disposed along a first three dimensional line. The processor 14 then repeats the analysis to locate points 208, 210, 212 in a fashion similar to that described above for the point 206.”, ¶ 0065, “The robotic tool is then rotated and the process is repeated to re-locate the points 206, 208, 210, 212 in the second image of the robotic tool.”. The cited passages show that the 3D position of the weldhead is determined by using the position of the base of the welding wire and the tip of the welding wire. Furthermore, the two images used are different from each other, as the robot has been rotated between the first and second images used. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that a 2D image is a projection of the 3D object captured by the imaging device.);
and identify the location of the tip of the weldhead based on the location in 3D space of the tip of the protrusion and on a known length extending between a base of the protrusion and the tip of the protrusion (Nemmers: ¶ 0066, “ A tool center point 214 based upon the wire 202 can be created from the direction of the reference line R1, the origin point 206 and a pre-defined distance (e.g. 17 mm) associated with the robotic tool. The process is repeated for the wire 204 using the points 210, 212 to generate reference line R2 and tool center point 216.”. The cited passage clearly shows using the position of the base of the protrusion and the known length of the protrusion to determine the 3D position of the tip.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher with the method of identifying the 3D location of the weldhead taught in Nemmers with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a method of identifying 3D position of the weldhead can be done automatically and within seconds (Nemmers: ¶ 0091, “Specifically, a user tool adjustment can be completed in two to three seconds and the user frames are taught automatically.”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0118894 A1 ("Eldridge") in view of US 10926414 B2 ("Huang") in further view of US 2024/0009748 A1 ("Kotera") in further view of US 2021/0065356 A1 ("Fisher") in further view of US 2011/0029132 A1 ("Nemmers") in further view of US 6603870 B2 ("Bascle").
Regarding claim 13, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher in further view of Nemmers does not teach wherein the controller is configured to: define a first plane in a first image of the plurality of images based on the annotated base of the protrusion;
define a second plane in a second image of the plurality of images based on the annotated tip of the protrusion;
and intersect the first plane with the second plane to define the longitudinal axis of the protrusion.
Bascle, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to: define a first plane in a first image of the plurality of images based on the annotated base of the protrusion (Bascle: Column 9 lines 47-67, “Apparatus for positioning or aligning a biopsy needle for proper insertion into the body of a patient from a selected point on a surface of the body, so as to enter in a straight line passing through a designated target region within the body, in conjunction with an imaging system utilizing radiation from a first source position for deriving a first radiographic image on a first image plane of a portion of the body including a first image of the selected point and a first image of the target region, the first source position, the first image of the selected point, and the first image of the target region defining a first viewing plane .pi.,…”);
define a second plane in a second image of the plurality of images based on the annotated tip of the protrusion (Bascle: Column 9 lines 47-67, “the imaging system utilizing radiation from a second source position for deriving a second radiographic image on a second image plane of the portion of the body, including a second image of the selected point and a second image of the target region, the second source position, the second image of the selected point, and the second image of the target region define a second viewing plane .pi..sup.1,…”);
and intersect the first plane with the second plane to define the longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Bascle: Column 9 lines 47 – Column 10 line 24, “…first measuring circle apparatus for establishing a first auxiliary plane at a first plane angle .THETA..sub.1 with respect to a selected set of coordinates and for constraining a pointer for moving rotatably about the selected point and within the first auxiliary plane to a first angle of inclination .phi..sub.1 relative to the set of coordinates such that a projection or extension of an image of the pointer on the first image plane passes through the first image of the target region; second measuring circle apparatus for establishing a second auxiliary plane at a second plane angle .THETA..sub.2 with respect to the selected set of coordinates, the second plane angle being different from the first plane angle such that the first and second auxiliary planes form an intersection line…”. The line created by the intersection of the two planes would define the longitudinal axis.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the robotic welding system taught in Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher in further view of Nemmers with the method of defining an axis from the intersection of two planes in two images taught in Bascle with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination of the robotic welding system and image plane intersection method would have yielded the predictable result of obtaining the line defined by the intersection of the two planes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to have combine the robotic welding apparatus with the image plane intersection method. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, even though the image plane intersection method uses the same point in both images, such a method could easily be configured to a different point in the second image and would not change the functionality of the method or introduce new functionality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on Pages 9-18, Applicant argues that the prior art on record does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations of the invention.
Specifically on Pages 9-10, Applicant argues that the secondary reference Fisher does not teach the limitation “a method for calibrating a tool center point (TCP) of a robotic welding system, the method comprising: (a) receiving a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors of the robotic welding system, the plurality of images containing at least a portion of a protrusion extending from a tip of a weldhead of the robotic welding system, wherein the weldhead is attached to a robot arm of the robotic welding system and wherein the plurality of image sensors is attached to the robot arm” of independent claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As is stated above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section and in the previous Final Office Action mailed November 18th, Fisher was not solely relied upon to teach the limitation “a method for calibrating a tool center point (TCP) of a robotic welding system, the method comprising: (a) receiving a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors of the robotic welding system, the plurality of images containing at least a portion of a protrusion extending from a tip of a weldhead of the robotic welding system, wherein the weldhead is attached to a robot arm of the robotic welding system and wherein the plurality of image sensors is attached to the robot arm”. The primary reference Eldridge teaches a method for calibrating a tool center point (TCP) of a robotic welding system, the method comprising (Eldridge: ¶ 0006, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0102): the plurality of images containing at least a portion of a protrusion extending from a tip of a weldhead of the robotic welding system (Eldridge: Figures 11A-C, ¶ 0102), wherein the weldhead is attached to a robot arm of the robotic welding system (Eldridge: ¶ 0033, ¶ 0102); (b) identifying by a controller of the robotic welding system the protrusion extending from the weldhead in the plurality of images (Eldridge: ¶ 0109); (c) defining by the controller a longitudinal axis of the protrusion based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images (Eldridge: Figure 11B, ¶ 0109); and (d) identifying by the controller a location of the weldhead based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images and the defined longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Eldridge: ¶ 0109). The secondary reference Huang teaches (a) receiving a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors of the robotic welding system (Huang: Column 2 lines 45-57, Column 9 lines 59-67 – Column 10 lines 1-10), and that the location of the weldhead is a location in three-dimensional space (Huang: Column 8 lines 18-27). Huang clearly teaches that the system uses a plurality of image sensors used to capture a plurality of images. The secondary reference Fisher teaches wherein the plurality of image sensors is attached to the robot arm (Fisher: Figures 2A-B, ¶ 0043). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have mounted the plurality of cameras taught in Eldridge in view of Huang to the robot as taught in Fisher. Furthermore, even though Fisher does not teach the camera having a view of the tool, both Eldridge and Huang teach this separately. Due to both Eldridge and Huang teaching that the cameras must have at least a partial view of the tool, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, regardless of the placement of the cameras, the cameras must have at least a partial view of the tool. As such, of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to mount the cameras to the robot as taught in Fisher such that they have at least a partial view of the tool. Additionally, Huang already teaches the uses of a plurality of images sensors used to determine the TCP. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to have mounted the plurality of image sensors taught in Eldridge in view of Huang to the robot as taught in Fisher. Therefore, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher teaches the limitation “a method for calibrating a tool center point (TCP) of a robotic welding system, the method comprising: (a) receiving a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors of the robotic welding system, the plurality of images containing at least a portion of a protrusion extending from a tip of a weldhead of the robotic welding system, wherein the weldhead is attached to a robot arm of the robotic welding system and wherein the plurality of image sensors is attached to the robot arm”.
Specifically on Page 10, Applicant argues that the secondary reference Fisher is not analogous art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that US 2021/0065356 A1 (“Fisher”) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Fisher is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, specifically a sensor unit that is coupled to the weldhead. Fisher clearly teaches a camera that is coupled to the weldhead of a robot, and as such, is clearly reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Therefore, Fisher is clearly analogous art.
Specifically on Pages 11-14, Applicant argues that the combination of Eldridge in view of Nemmers in further view of Fisher does not teach the limitation “receiving, with the controller, multiple image from one or more sensors disposed on a robot arm of the robotic welding system” because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified the system taught in Eldridge in view of Nemmers with the imaging device being mounted on the robot as taught in Fisher because Eldridge and Nemmers teach away from such a modification, and that said modification change the principle operation of Eldridge in view of Huang. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The process of controlling and calibrating a robotic system using a camera mounted on the robot is a process that would be familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. In such a case, the coordinate frame of the camera can be immediately determined at each time step as it is based on the configuration of the robot (i.e. the joint angles), the length from joint to joint (i.e. the length of each link), and the distances to the camera itself. All of these parameters are typically known or easily gathered using known sensors such as angle sensors. Additionally, the transformation from the camera frame to the robot base frame is merely the inverse of the transformation from the robot base frame to the camera frame. Furthermore, the transformation from the world coordinate frame to the robot base frame (and by extension, the transformation from the robot base frame to the world coordinate frame), is known. Typically, in the cases of the claimed invention and the prior, where the robot base frame is static and does not move (i.e. the base of the robot does not move or is fixed in place), the transformation from the world coordinate frame to the robot base frame is a constant. Therefore, because the transformation from the robot base frame to the camera frame is a function of the joint angles which are known, and the transformation from the world coordinate frame to the robot base frame is a constant, the extrinsic properties of the camera (i.e. the transformation from the world coordinate frame to the camera frame) are easily determined at every timestep as being a function of the joint angles and a known constant. In conclusion, because the extrinsic properties of the camera are based on the joint angles and known constants, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the technological capabilities required to modify the system taught in Eldridge in view of Nemmers such that the camera(s) are mounted on the robot as taught in Fisher. Changing the location of the camera(s) would therefore not render the system taught in Eldridge in view of Nemmers inoperable. Furthermore, as long as the camera(s) have a sufficient view of the tool of the robotic system, the overall process taught in Eldridge in view of Nemmers would not change simply by virtue of the camera coordinate frame and extrinsic properties having been changed. Therefore, Eldridge in view of Nemmers in further view of Fisher clearly teaches the limitation “receiving, with the controller, multiple image from one or more sensors disposed on a robot arm of the robotic welding system”.
Specifically on Pages 14-15, Applicant argues that there is no teaching, suggesting, or motivation to combine Fisher with Eldridge in view of Huang. The specific rationale relied upon to combine the prior art references was combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention was not relied upon. MPEP 2143(A) describes the requirements to reject a claim under the used rationale. The following points must be articulate: (1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; (2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. With regards to the combination of Eldridge in view of Huang, it is obvious from the previous Final Office Action mailed November 18th, 2025, that Eldridge teaches a method for calibrating a tool center point (TCP) of a robotic welding system, the method comprising (Eldridge: ¶ 0006, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0102): the plurality of images containing at least a portion of a protrusion extending from a tip of a weldhead of the robotic welding system (Eldridge: Figures 11A-C, ¶ 0102), wherein the weldhead is attached to a robot arm of the robotic welding system (Eldridge: ¶ 0033, ¶ 0102); (b) identifying by a controller of the robotic welding system the protrusion extending from the weldhead in the plurality of images (Eldridge: ¶ 0109); (c) defining by the controller a longitudinal axis of the protrusion based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images (Eldridge: Figure 11B, ¶ 0109); and (d) identifying by the controller a location of the weldhead based on the protrusion identified in the plurality of images and the defined longitudinal axis of the protrusion (Eldridge: ¶ 0109), that Huang teaches (a) receiving a plurality of images captured from a plurality of image sensors of the robotic welding system (Huang: Column 2 lines 45-57, Column 9 lines 59-67 – Column 10 lines 1-10), and that the location of the weldhead is a location in three-dimensional space (Huang: Column 8 lines 18-27), and that Fisher teaches wherein the plurality of image sensors is attached to the robot arm (Fisher: Figures 2A-B, ¶ 0043). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have clearly been able to couple the imaging devices taught in Eldridge in view of Huang to the robot as taught in Fisher according to methods known in the art. Mounting the camera to the robot would not change the functionality of either the robot or the camera. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable, as the combination only requires simply changing the locations of a known sensor according to methods taught in Fisher and known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the requirements for the rationale regarding the combination of Eldridge in view of Huang and Fisher have clearly been met.
Specifically on Page 15, applicant argues that Fisher fails to teach the limitation “a sensor unit comprising a plurality of image sensors arranged along the robot arm or weldhead arranged whereby at least a portion of the weldhead is within a field of view of each of the plurality of image sensors” of independent claim 11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above with regards to prior arguments and as is stated in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section, Eldridge teaches a TCP calibration method for a robotic welding system. The system includes a robot extending from a base to a terminal end, wherein a weldhead is coupled to the terminal end. The system further includes an image sensor that is arranged such that at least a position is within the field of the image sensor. The system is configured to capture a plurality of images of the weldhead, identify the protrusion extending from the weldhead, determine a longitudinal axis of the identified protrusion, and then determine the position of the protrusion based on the plurality of images and the longitudinal axis. Huang teaches a method of determining a TCP for a robot using a plurality of images captured by a plurality of cameras. As can clearly be seen, the combination of Eldridge in view of Huang teaches a plurality of cameras that are arranges to have at least a partial view of the weldhead and its protrusion. The secondary reference Fisher teaches a plurality of image sensors attached to the robot arm (Fisher: Figures 2A-B, ¶ 0043). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have mounted the plurality of cameras taught in Eldridge in view of Huang to the robot as taught in Fisher. Furthermore, even though Fisher does not teach the camera having a view of the tool, both Eldridge and Huang teach this separately. Due to both Eldridge and Huang teaching that the cameras must have at least a partial view of the tool, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, regardless of the placement of the cameras, the cameras must have at least a partial view of the tool. As such, of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to mount the cameras to the robot as taught in Fisher such that they have at least a partial view of the tool. Additionally, both Eldridge and Huang teach that the tool is mounted to a robotic arm. Even though Fisher states that the robot is of a form that is not an arm, mounting cameras to a robot as taught in Fisher would have been equally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art regardless of the form of the robot. Therefore, Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Kotera in further view of Fisher teaches the limitation “a sensor unit comprising a plurality of image sensors arranged along the robot arm or weldhead arranged whereby at least a portion of the weldhead is within a field of view of each of the plurality of image sensors”.
Specifically on Page 16, Applicant argues that Rossano fails to teach the limitation “wherein the plurality of image sensors comprises at least a portion of a local sensor unit or a global sensor unit of the robotic welding system”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is stated above in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection section and in the Final Office Action mailed November 18th, 2025, Rossano teaches wherein the plurality of image sensors comprises at least a portion of a local sensor unit or a global sensor unit of the robotic welding system (Rossano: ¶ 0023). As is apparent from the cited passages of Rossano, the sensors are clearly part of a global sensor unit that is positioned in the workspace. This is additionally shown in Figure 1, where the sensors are clearly external to the robot. Furthermore, The robot station and robot are clearly distinguished from each other in the cited passage. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the sensors being part of the robot station and used to observe the robot and workpieces would indicate that these sensors are part of a global system. Therefore, the combination of Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher in further view of Rossano teaches the limitation “wherein the plurality of image sensors comprises at least a portion of a local sensor unit or a global sensor unit of the robotic welding system”.
Specifically on Pages 16-17, Applicant argues that Nemmers does not teach the limitations of claims 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 22. Applicant further argues that because Nemmers teaches that using one camera and rotating the robot to a different position and capturing multiple images using the single camera. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher teaches a method of determining the TCP for a robotic welding system using multiple images captured from multiple cameras. The method taught in Nemmers uses multiple captured images to perform the operations of claims 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 22. As such, because the overall method taught in Nemmers is substantially similar to the operations being claimed in claims 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 22, and the combination of Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher already teaches capturing multiple images using multiple cameras, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher such that the method taught in Nemmers is performed using the images captured from the multiple cameras. Such a modification would not have changed or introduced new functionality, as the method taught in Nemmers would still be using multiple images taken from different perspectives. No inventive effort would have been required. Therefore, the combination of Eldridge in view of Huang in further view of Fisher teaches the limitations of claims 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 22.uang in
Specifically on Pages 17-18, Applicant argues that Bascle is not analogous prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that US 6603870 B2 (“Bascle”) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Bascle is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, specifically wherein (c) comprises: (c1) defining a first plane in a first image of the plurality of images based on the annotated base of the protrusion; (c2) defining a second plane in a second image of the plurality of images based on the annotated tip of the protrusion; and (c3) intersecting the first plane with the second plane to define the longitudinal axis of the protrusion. Fisher clearly teaches wherein (c) comprises: (c1) defining a first plane in a first image of the plurality of images based on the annotated base of the protrusion; (c2) defining a second plane in a second image of the plurality of images based on the annotated tip of the protrusion; and (c3) intersecting the first plane with the second plane to define the longitudinal axis of the protrusion., and as such, is clearly reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Therefore, Fisher is clearly analogous art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah W Stiebritz whose telephone number is (571)272-3414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7-5 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/N.W.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights