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
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response filed November 26, 2025, in which claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 were amended, claim 8 was cancelled, and new claim 12 was added. The claim objections to claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn. However, the amendments and arguments presented have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below. Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 12 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Chang681 in view of Roos, for the reasons originally stated and as further explained herein.
The Examiner found Applicant’s arguments to lack clarity. The Examiner has therefore restructured them below to address each assertion individually.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHANG681 + ROOS REJECTION – “overlooks Chang’s mechanics”.
It seems Applicant is first arguing that if Chang681 were to be combined with Roos, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to combine the apparatus of Chang with its specific structure, i.e. with the circular path 22, the light source 2, the light conduit 4, the cameras, lights and lenses…with the robot hand of Roos” and that “suggesting this combination overlooks the mechanics of Chang.”
Examiner’s Response: This argument appears to mischaracterize the rejection and is not persuasive. To make sure the exact argument is rebutted, several seemingly related rebuttals are presented below:
A. The Rejection Does Not Require Bodily Incorporation
The rejection does not propose physically removing Chang681’s entire circular sensor assembly and mechanically attaching it unchanged to Roos’s robot hand 7. Rather, the rejection recognizes functional teachings:
Chang681 teaches: A sensor system with optical components (cameras, lights, lenses) for measuring rolled metal bars (col. 1, lines 40-60; Figs. 1, 13a-13f).
Roos teaches: Mounting measurement devices on a mobile robotic arm that positions the devices at different locations along a production line (col. 3, lines 35-50; col. 4, lines 60-67).
The combination: Using Chang681’s type of optical measurement system on Roos’s mobile robotic platform to enable flexible, multi-location measurement in a rolling mill.
This is a combination of functional teachings, not rigid mechanical transplantation. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (rejecting “rigid and mandatory formula” for combining references).
B. Chang681 Expressly Teaches Modular, Adaptable Sensor Mounting
Contrary to Applicant’s characterization, Chang681 does not teach only a fixed circular structure. Chang681 explicitly discloses:
Removable/modular configuration: “passive optical components 2, 4, 6 are placed on a removable cassette 152 which can be mounted on a base plate 154” (col. 11, lines 46-52; Fig. 13b).
Flexible mounting: “The module of measurement and control 30 can be easily mounted in a wide variety of suitable retention mechanisms” (col. 12, lines 6-8) (emphasis added).
Adaptable to different positions: “the apparatus 40 can be arranged at different, desired sections along a rolling mill line” (col. 13, lines 6-10).
These teachings demonstrate that Chang681’s measurement system is designed for flexible mounting configurations, directly supporting adaptation to a robotic platform as taught by Roos.
C. Roos Expressly Contemplates Mounting Different Measurement Devices
Roos explicitly teaches: “various types of measuring devices 10 can be attached to the robot hand 7” (col. 4, lines 60-65) (emphasis added). This is an express invitation to one of ordinary skill to mount different measurement systems—including optical inspection systems for manufactured products—on the robotic platform.
D. No Evidence of Inoperability
Applicant has provided no technical explanation or evidence demonstrating that Chang681’s optical sensors could not function when mounted on Roos’s mobile robot. The sensors perform optical measurements of a workpiece—a function that is independent of whether the mounting platform is stationary (as in some Chang681 embodiments) or mobile (as in the proposed combination).
Absent factual evidence of technical impossibility, attorney argument alone cannot establish inoperability. Attorneys’ arguments are no substitute for factual evidence.
E. Ordinary Skill in the Art
The level of ordinary skill in the art includes familiarity with:
Automated optical inspection systems for manufacturing
Industrial robotics and robotic positioning systems
Rolling mill technology and measurement requirements
One of ordinary skill in this art would understand how to mount optical sensors on a robotic end-effector—this is routine engineering practice. The selection of appropriate sensors (cameras, lights, lenses) and their mounting configuration to a robot hand involves no more than ordinary mechanical design choices well within the skill of the art.
Conclusion: The combination is technically feasible, expressly contemplated by both references (Chang681’s modular mounting; Roos’s various measuring devices), and well within the ordinary skill of the art. The “mechanics” argument is unpersuasive.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHANG681 + ROOS REJECTION – “technical fields are different”.
Applicant then appears to argue that “the technical fields in these two documents are different” and therefore “one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Chang with Roos.”
Examiner’s Response: This argument is not persuasive. Both references are analogous art within the field of automated industrial metrology and quality control.
A. Both References Address the Same Technical Problem
The proper test for analogous art is whether the reference is: (1) in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
Both Chang681 and Roos are in the field of automated optical measurement systems for quality control in manufacturing. Both address the identical technical problem, i.e. how to accurately position optical measurement devices to inspect manufactured products at multiple locations along a production line.
Chang681 addresses positioning measurement sensors to inspect rolled metal bars for dimensional accuracy and surface defects (col. 1, lines 40-60; col. 4, lines 49-58; col. 13, lines 1-15).
Roos addresses positioning measurement devices at multiple locations within a manufacturing facility to inspect vehicle body components (col. 1, lines 10-30; col. 2, lines 1-20).
The fact that one reference measures rolled bars and the other measures vehicle bodies does not place them in different technical fields—both are industrial metrology systems using optical sensors for dimensional and defect inspection.
B. Roos Is Reasonably Pertinent to the Problem
Even if the products differ, Roos is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Applicant’s stated problem is: how to safely and efficiently measure rolled material at multiple points between rolling mill stands without stopping production or exposing workers to hazards (spec., page 1, lines 15-35; page 2, lines 1-25).
Roos directly solves this problem by teaching a mobile robotic system that automatically positions measurement devices at different locations along a production line. The specific product being measured (vehicle bodies vs. rolled bars) is irrelevant to the technical solution (mobile robotic positioning of measurement systems).
C. Chang681 Expressly Discusses Rolling Mill Applications
Chang681 is not merely about “detecting surface defects on a workpiece,” it specifically addresses measurement systems for rolling mills. The reference explicitly states: “the apparatus 40 can be arranged at different, desired sections along a rolling mill line for performing the required checks at a plurality of points along the line itself” (col. 13, lines 6-15). Chang681 further discusses “rolled and/or drawn bars” (col. 4, lines 49-54) and measurement systems positioned “at the exit of the rolling stand” (col. 13, lines 10-12).
Chang681 is therefore in the exact same technical field as Applicant’s invention, i.e. measurement systems for rolling mill operations.
Conclusion on Analogous Art: Both references are analogous art addressing automated optical measurement in manufacturing environments, with Chang681 explicitly directed to rolling mill applications. The “different technical fields” argument is without merit.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHANG681 + ROOS REJECTION – “impermissible hindsight”.
It appears that Applicant is then arguing that the proposed combination is the result of impermissible hindsight gleaned from the benefit of Applicant's disclosure.
Examiner’s Response: This argument is not persuasive. The motivation to combine exists explicitly in the prior art, independent of Applicant’s disclosure.
A. Chang681 Identifies the Problem Solved by the Combination
Chang681 explicitly discusses the need for measurements “at different, desired sections along a rolling mill line for performing the required checks at a plurality of points along the line itself” (col. 13, lines 6-15). Chang681 teaches positioning measurement apparatus “at the exit of the rolling stand to perform suitable checks” at multiple locations (col. 13, lines 10-15).
This teaching expressly identifies the problem: the need to perform measurements at multiple locations along a rolling mill line.
B. Roos Provides the Solution to Chang681’s Stated Problem
Rather than installing fixed measurement stations at multiple locations (as suggested by Chang681), Roos teaches using a single mobile robotic system that moves to different measurement locations. This approach solves Chang681’s stated problem (measurements at multiple points) while providing obvious advantages:
Reduced equipment costs: One mobile sensor system replaces multiple fixed stations (Office Action, p. 8: “allow only one sensor suite to be used in a variety of places, making the overall manufacturing process less expensive”).
Increased flexibility: The mobile system can be repositioned to measure at any desired location along the line without installing permanent fixtures.
Improved worker safety: Automated robotic positioning eliminates the need for workers to manually position measurement equipment near hazardous rolling operations.
These benefits flow directly from the teachings of Chang681 and Roos, not from Applicant’s disclosure.
C. Roos Expressly Teaches Attaching Various Measuring Devices
Roos explicitly states: “various types of measuring devices 10 can be attached to the robot hand 7” (col. 4, lines 60-65). This is an express teaching inviting one of ordinary skill to consider mounting different types of measurement systems—including those for inspecting manufactured products like Chang681’s rolled bar inspection system—on the mobile robotic platform.
This teaching exists in Roos itself, completely independent of Applicant’s disclosure.
D. The Combination Uses Each Reference for Its Intended Purpose
The combination does not require modifying either reference contrary to its intended purpose:
Chang681’s measurement system is designed to measure rolled metal products, the combination uses it for exactly that purpose.
Roos’s mobile robot is designed to carry measurement devices to different locations, the combination uses it for exactly that purpose.
E. Motivation Is Articulated from the Prior Art
The Examiner’s stated motivation derives from explicit teachings in the prior art:
From Chang681: The need for measurements at multiple locations along a rolling mill line (col. 13, lines 6-15).
From Roos: Using a mobile robotic system to position measurement devices at multiple locations (col. 1, lines 25-40; col. 3, lines 35-50).
From both: The recognition that optical measurement systems can be mounted on robotic platforms (Chang681: modular mounting, col. 12, lines 6-8; Roos: various measuring devices, col. 4, lines 60-65).
No reference to Applicant’s disclosure is necessary to articulate this motivation. The combination follows logically from the explicit teachings of the prior art itself.
F. Predictable Results
The combination yields entirely predictable results: Chang681’s optical sensors, when mounted on Roos’s mobile robot, would measure rolled metal bars at different locations along the production line. This is precisely what each reference teaches in its respective context. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Conclusion on Hindsight: The motivation to combine Chang681 and Roos arises from express teachings in the prior art identifying the problem (multiple measurement locations needed) and the solution (mobile robotic positioning of measurement systems).
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING CHANG681 + ROOS REJECTION – “Roos does not teach an autonomous vehicle”.
Applicant then appears to argue that Roos does not teach or disclose an autonomous vehicle and therefore the combination cannot meet the claim limitations.
Examiner’s Response: This argument is not persuasive. Roos expressly teaches an autonomous vehicle as claimed.
A. Roos Teaches Autonomous Movement Along Rails
Roos discloses a measuring robot 6 mounted on a base that moves along rails 8, 9 (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 35-50). The measuring robot 6 travels automatically along the rail system to position the measuring device 10 at different measurement locations within the measuring station (col. 3, lines 40-50; col. 4, lines 1-15). The system operates under programmed control to perform calibration and measurement operations without continuous human intervention (col. 1, lines 10-25; col. 4, lines 20-40).
B. “Autonomous Vehicle” Under BRI
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of Applicant’s specification, an “autonomous vehicle” is a vehicle capable of moving without direct human control during operation. Applicant’s specification describes the carriage 16 as “an autonomous vehicle able to move freely near the rolling mill stands” (spec., page 3, lines 5-15) and states “the carriage 16 will be able to move autonomously approaching the measuring point” (spec., page 3, lines 25-35).
Roos’s measuring robot 6 on its movable base satisfies this definition. The robot travels along rails 8, 9 under programmed control to reach different measurement positions automatically (Roos, col. 3, lines 35-50; col. 4, lines 1-20). This is autonomous movement—the vehicle (robot base/carriage) moves to designated positions without requiring an operator to manually drive or push it to each location.
C. Applicant Provides No Limiting Definition of “Autonomous Vehicle”
Applicant’s specification does not define “autonomous vehicle” to require any specific sensing technology, navigation algorithm, or degree of autonomy beyond the ability to move without direct human control. The specification describes various guidance methods (rails, artificial vision, optical lines, magnetic strips—spec., Figs. 1, 5, 6) as equivalent embodiments. Roos’s rail-guided automatic movement clearly falls within this scope.
D. The Amendment Does Not Distinguish Over the Prior Art
The addition of “autonomous vehicle” language merely makes explicit what was already implicit in the original claim language requiring the robotic arm to “move parallel to said line” between insertion and extraction positions. Roos teaches exactly this functionality, i.e. a robot that automatically moves parallel to a production line (rails 8, 9) between different positions (col. 3, lines 35-50; Figs. 1-3).
Conclusion on Autonomous Vehicle: Roos teaches an autonomous vehicle, i.e. a programmatically controlled mobile robot base that moves automatically along a defined path (rails 8, 9) to position measurement equipment at different locations. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of Applicant’s claimed “autonomous vehicle.”
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS REGARDING Claim 11; Della Vedova + ROOS 103 REJECTION
Applicant argues, Roos provides a process and a device for calibrating robot measuring stations…within a measuring station for vehicle body shells. This is not indicative of a method for carrying out measurements on a material being processed in a rolling plant…Instead, Roos provides a measuring robot 6 with a robot hand 7 on which the measuring device can be positioned.
Examiner’s Response:
This argument fails because it misconstrues how prior art references are applied under 35 U.S.C. §103.
I. References Are Used for What They Teach, Not Their Specific Applications
Prior art references are not limited to their specific applications. A reference is applied for what it teaches, not for what it exemplifies. A reference is not limited to the specific embodiments presented, but rather teaches what would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art from the reference.
Roos teaches a mobile robotic system (robot 6) mounted on a movable base that travels along rails (8, 9) to position measurement devices at different locations along a production line. This teaching is not limited to vehicle body shells, rather it is a general principle of using mobile robotics to position measurement equipment at multiple locations in a manufacturing environment.
The fact that Roos demonstrates this principle in a vehicle body shell context does not preclude its application to rolled metal products.
II. Roos Is Analogous Art
A reference is analogous art if it is either: In the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, OR reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor was trying to solve.
The test focuses on the problem being solved, not the specific product or industry.
A. Same Field of Endeavor: Both Roos and Applicant’s invention are in the field of automated measurement systems for manufacturing quality control. Both use:
Mobile robotic positioning systems
Optical/sensor-based measurement devices
Automated movement along a production line
Non-contact inspection during or after manufacturing
The specific products being measured (vehicle bodies vs. rolled bars) do not change the field—both are industrial metrology systems using robotic positioning for quality control.
B. Reasonably Pertinent to the Problem: Applicant’s stated problem is: how to position measurement devices at multiple locations along a production line without stopping production or exposing workers to hazards (Spec., p. 1-2).
Roos directly addresses this identical problem by teaching: a mobile robot that automatically travels along a production line to position measurement devices at different locations (Roos, col. 1, lines 25-40; col. 3, lines 35-50).
The fact that Roos solves this problem for vehicle bodies rather than rolled metal is irrelevant—the technical solution (mobile robotic positioning) applies equally to both contexts.
III. Roos Expressly Teaches Broader Application Beyond Vehicle Bodies
Roos explicitly states: “Various types of measuring devices 10 can be attached to the robot hand 7” (col. 4, lines 60-65) (emphasis added).
This is an express teaching that the robotic platform is adaptable to different measurement devices and applications. Roos does not limit its disclosure to vehicle body shell measurements only, rather it teaches a general-purpose mobile measurement platform.
When a reference expressly teaches that its apparatus can accommodate “various types” of devices, one of ordinary skill understands this as an invitation to adapt the system to other measurement applications.
IV. Applicant’s Argument Would Improperly Narrow §103 Analysis
Obviousness analysis does not require that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or purpose as the claimed invention.
The question is not whether Roos is “indicative of a method for carrying out measurements…in a rolling plant”—the question is whether Roos teaches elements that would make the claimed method obvious.
Application Here: Roos teaches:
A mobile robot (6) that moves along rails (8, 9) parallel to a production line
Positioning measurement devices at multiple locations
Automatic movement between measurement positions
A robot hand (7) that can carry various measuring devices
These teachings, when combined with Chang681’s rolling mill measurement sensors, render the claimed method obvious. The fact that Roos demonstrates these principles in a different manufacturing context does not negate what it teaches about mobile robotic measurement systems.
V. One of Ordinary Skill Would Recognize the Applicability
One of ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Such a person can recognize that teachings from one manufacturing context can solve problems in another. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
One of ordinary skill in industrial automation and manufacturing quality control would immediately recognize that Roos’s mobile robotic measurement platform could be adapted to rolling mill applications. Both contexts require:
Positioning measurement equipment at multiple locations
Automated movement along a production line
Non-contact optical/sensor-based inspection
Worker safety improvements through automation
The adaptation requires no more than applying a known technique (mobile robotic positioning) to a known device (rolling mill measurement sensors) to yield predictable results (measurements at multiple locations). This is the essence of obvious design variation under KSR.
VI. The Examiner’s Combination Is Proper Under §103
The Examiner does not assert that Roos alone teaches the entire claimed method. Rather, the Examiner combines:
Chang681: Teaches measurement sensors for rolled metal products in rolling mills
Roos: Teaches mobile robotic positioning of measurement devices along a production line
This combination is proper because:
Both references address quality control measurement in manufacturing
Chang681 identifies the need for measurements at multiple locations (col. 13, lines 6-15)
Roos provides the solution: a single mobile system instead of multiple fixed stations
The combination yields predictable results with obvious advantages (cost reduction, flexibility, safety)
Conclusion
Roos is analogous art that teaches mobile robotic positioning of measurement devices in manufacturing environments. The fact that Roos demonstrates this principle in vehicle body shell plants rather than rolling mills does not limit what Roos teaches about robotic measurement systems. Roos’s express teaching that “various types of measuring devices” can be attached to its robot (col. 4, lines 60-65) directly supports adapting the system to rolling mill applications as taught by Chang681.
Applicant’s argument amounts to asserting that references can only be combined within identical industrial applications, which is a position squarely rejected by KSR and subsequent Federal Circuit precedent.
The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously-cited Chang et al (USPN 7324681; “Chang681”) in view of previously-cited Roos (USPN 6615112; “Roos”).
Regarding claim 1, Chang681 discloses in fig. 13a-13f; an apparatus for carrying out measurements on a material (16) being processed in a rolling plant (col. 13, lines 6-10), the rolling plant comprising; a plurality of rolling mill stands (now shown, but discussed in col. 4, lines 49-54) placed in succession along a line (20), wherein said apparatus comprises a measuring device (shown in fig. 13b) provided with sensor means (12) adapted to perform measurements on said material (16) being processed, wherein said measuring device (fig. 13b) is positioned so that said sensor means (12) perform the desired measurements on the material (16) being processed, and is in a position (43c) between said two adjacent stands (not shown, but on opposite sides of 43a and 43b).
Chang681 is silent to a robotic arm, and therefore the details of the robotic arm configuration. Specifically, that the arm moves parallel to said line and which is movable between a position of insertion between two adjacent stands of said succession of rolling mill stands and a position of extraction from said two adjacent stands, said robotic arm carrying the measuring device, and said robotic arm is in said position of insertion between said two adjacent stands, and is adapted to move parallel to said line.
However, Roos teaches in figs. 1-9 a robotic arm (6) which moves parallel to said line (9) and which is movable, said robotic arm (6) carrying a measuring device (10), and said robotic arm (6) is adapted to move parallel to said line (via rails 8) said robotic arm is mounted on a carriage (not labeled in fig. 1 and 2) which constitutes an autonomous vehicle adapted to move (see description of robot, such as in col. 5, lines 4-8, and also the paragraph spanning cols. 5 and 6) parallel to said line (9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Roos’ robotic arm configuration to further support Chang681’s sensor suite in a rolling mill since this will allow only one sensor suite to be used in a variety of places, making the overall manufacturing process less expensive and safer for the worker. And one skilled in the art will realize that this configuration will meet all of Applicant’s recited limitations, including the robotic arm being between a position of insertion between two adjacent stands of said succession of rolling mill stands and a position of extraction from said two adjacent stands.
Regarding claim 4, Roos teaches the robotic arm (6) is mounted on a carriage (not labeled in fig. 1) that is movable on rails (8) parallel to said line (9). And this constitutes an autonomous vehicle which moves parallel to said line.
The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Roos teaches the robotic arm (6) comprises a three-dimensional guide scanning or vision system (10).
The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Cheng discloses the sensor means (12) are configured to detect surface defects of said material (16) being processed.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang681 in view of Roos in further view of previously-cited Chang (US PGPUB 20140338472; “Chang472”).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Chang681 discloses in fig. 13b that the measuring device shown in fig. 13b can be mounted on a variety of different locations and platforms (Cheng681; col. 11, lines 49-50) and a wide variety of suitable retention mechanisms (col. 12, ll. 6-8). And figure 1 of Chang681 seems to infer that the plurality of lights are constructed in an open ring configuration. Additionally, Roos teaches one skilled in the art will realize many different types of measuring devices can be attached to the hinged free end (7) of the robotic arm (Roos; the entire disclosure, but especially in the sentence spanning col. 4 and 5).
However, both Chang681 and Roos are silent to the measuring device having an open-ring configuration.
The examiner takes official notice that adding an opening to a ring to allow it to partially surround a linear object, thereby having the sensors distributed along the extension of the ring, is a well-known modification. The Examiner notes that since Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge is taken to be admitted prior art. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.
Further evidence this is well-known in the art can be found in figures 1-3 of Chang472. shows that a sensor can have an open-ring configuration to partially surround a linear object to be measured, with the sensors distributed along the extension of the ring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form Chang681’s sensor in an open-ring configuration and place it on Roos’ robot arm to allow the sensor to be modular and fit different sections of a linear structure. This would allow for fewer sensors and ultimately make the overall process less expensive.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Della Vedova (US PGPUB 20130160509; “Della Vedova”) in view of previously cited Zhang et al. (USPN 11518027; “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Della Vedova discloses in fig. 1; an apparatus for carrying out measurements on a material (11) being processed in a rolling plant (abstract and [0048]), the rolling plant comprising; a plurality of rolling mill stands (12,13) placed in succession along a line (along 11), wherein said apparatus comprises a measuring device (19) provided with sensor means (see [0057]) adapted to perform measurements on said material (11) being processed, wherein said measuring device (19) is positioned so that said sensor means (not shown but discloses in paragraph [0057]) perform the desired measurements on the material (11) being processed, and is in a position (unlabeled, see fig. 1) between said two adjacent stands (12,13).
Della Vedova is silent to a robotic arm, and therefore the details of the robotic arm configuration. Specifically, that the arm moves parallel to said line and which is movable between a position of insertion between two adjacent stands of said succession of rolling mill stands and a position of extraction from said two adjacent stands, said robotic arm carrying the measuring device, and said robotic arm is in said position of insertion between said two adjacent stands, and is adapted to move parallel to said line.
However, Zhang teaches in fig. 2 a robotic arm configuration which moves parallel (via rail 130) to the line of work (144), and is movable between a position of insertion and extraction (not shown but discussed in col. 10, lines 44-54), and can carry a variety of sensors (132; see also col. 4, lines 4-23), and said robotic arm (106) is adapted to move parallel to said line (via rails 130) said robotic arm is mounted on a carriage (142) which constitutes an autonomous vehicle adapted to move (see at least col. 8, ll. 61 to col. 10, ll. 14) parallel to said line (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Zhang’s robotic arm configuration in Della Vedova’s rolling plant since this will increase worker safety by preventing human workers from getting too close to the hot and fast-moving material, and also allow for a more flexible and accurate measurement system, yielding a better, overall product.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Della Vedova is silent to the robotic arm configuration.
However, Zheng teaches in figures 2 that the robotic arm can be mounted one a carriage (142) that is movable parallel to said line (144) and is guided by artificial vision systems, being an optical line (see at least col. 4, lines 24-46).
The reasons for combining and motivation are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Della Vedova discloses the sensor means ([0057]) can be configured to detect surface defects of said material (11) being processed.
Regarding claim 10, Della Vedova discloses in fig. 1, a system comprising a rolling plant ((abstract and [0048]) which comprises a plurality of rolling mill stands (12,13) placed in succession along a line to form a rolling mill line (10) along which a material (11) being processed advances and an apparatus (19) for carrying out measurements on said material (11) being processed between two adjacent measurements (19,20) on said material (11) being processed between two adjacent stands (12,13) of said succession of rolling mill stands, wherein the apparatus is arranged next to said rolling mill line.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Della Vedova in view of Roos.
Regarding claim 11, Della Vedova discloses a method for carrying out measurements on a material (11) being processed in a rolling plant comprising a plurality of rolling mill stands (12,13) placed in succession along a line (via 11) to form a rolling mill line (not labeled), the method including the following steps: sensor means (19,20) adapted to perform measurements on said material (11) being processed, carrying out measurements on said material being processed (11) by means of said sensor means (19,20).
Della Vedova is silent to a robotic arm, and thus a method of operating a robotic arm.
Roos teaches in figures 1-4 a robotic arm (6) which is adapted to move parallel to said line (z) and alongside said line (9) and which is movable between a position of insertion between two adjacent stands (Roos fig. 1; 13 can correspond to Della Vedova’s stands 12 and 13) and a position of extraction from said two adjacent stands (Roos fig. 1; 13 can correspond to Della Vedova’s stands 12 and 13), said robotic arm (6) carrying a measuring device (10) provided with sensor means (camera) adapted to perform measurements on said material being processed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Roos’ robotic arm to carry Della Vedova’s sensor in a rolling mill to allow for a more robust and modular measuring unit which can allow for only a single sensor arm unit which will reduce the overall cost of the manufacturing process.
While Della Vedova and Roos do not explicitly discloses the rest of the method, i.e. when said robotic arm is in said extraction position, make said robotic arm move autonomously parallel to said line until said robotic arm is arranged next to two adjacent rolling mill stands in a position between them; moving said robotic arm from said extraction position to said position of insertion between said two adjacent stands bringing said measuring device at said material being processed; carrying out measurements on said material being processed by means of said sensor means, keeping said robotic arm in said insertion position; moving said robotic arm from said insertion position to said extraction position in order to be able to move said robotic arm again parallel to said line; the examiner notes these are obvious method steps in light of the teachings of Della Vedova and Roos.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the robotic arm as recited in the rest of Applicant’s method, this will allow for quick and accurate measuring unit that can move to different locations on the line which will improve worker safety and reduce the cost of the overall manufacturing plant.
Regarding claim 12, Della Vedova discloses an apparatus for carrying out measurements on a material (11) being processed in a rolling plant comprising; a plurality of rolling mill stands (12, 13) placed in succession along a line (via 11) to form a rolling mill line (not labeled), wherein said apparatus comprises sensor means (19, 20) adapted to perform measurements on said material (11) being processed.
Della Vedova is silent to a robotic arm, and thus the specific configuration of a robotic arm carrying a measuring device between insertion and extraction positions.
However, Roos teaches in Figures 1-4 a robotic arm (6) which is adapted to move parallel to said line (z) and alongside said line (9) and which is movable between a position of insertion between two adjacent stands (Roos Fig. 1; element 13 can correspond to Della Vedova’s stands 12 and 13) and a position of extraction from said two adjacent stands (Roos Fig. 1; element 13 can correspond to Della Vedova’s stands 12 and 13), said robotic arm (6) carrying a measuring device (10) provided with sensor means (camera) adapted to perform measurements on said material being processed, wherein said robotic arm (6) is adapted to position said measuring device (10) at said material being processed when said robotic arm (6) is in said position of insertion between said two adjacent stands, so that said sensor means (camera in device 10) perform the desired measurements on the material being processed, and is adapted to move parallel to said line (9) when said robotic arm (6) is in said position of extraction from said two adjacent stands.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Roos’ robotic arm to carry Della Vedova’s sensors in a rolling mill to allow for a more robust and modular measuring unit which can allow for only a single sensor arm unit which will reduce the overall cost of the manufacturing process.
However, both Della Vedova and Roos are silent to the specific configuration wherein the measuring device is hinged to the free end of the robotic arm and has an open-ring configuration with sensor means distributed along the extension of the ring.
Roos teaches that the measuring device (10) can be positioned at the robot hand (7), which constitutes the free end of the robotic arm (6) (Roos, col. 4, lines 60-65). Roos further teaches that “various types of measuring devices 10 can be attached to the robot hand 7” (col. 4, lines 60-65), indicating that the measuring device is hinged or otherwise attached to the free end of the robotic arm in a manner allowing positioning and articulation.
However, neither Della Vedova nor Roos explicitly teaches an open-ring configuration with sensors distributed along the ring’s extension.
The Examiner takes official notice that configuring a measurement device as an open ring that partially surrounds a linear workpiece, with sensors distributed along the ring’s extension, is a well-known design in industrial measurement systems. The Examiner notes that since Applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge is taken to be admitted prior art. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. This configuration allows the measurement device to be positioned around a continuous linear product (such as bars, pipes, or rolled material) without requiring the product to be threaded through a closed ring, while providing multiple measurement points around the workpiece’s circumference.
Further evidence that this configuration is well-known in the art can be found in Chang472, which shows in Figures 1-3 a sensor array having an open-ring configuration (element 102 in Fig. 1) that partially surrounds a linear object (pipe 104) to be measured, with sensors distributed along the extension of the ring (multiple sensor elements shown around the circumference). Chang472 explicitly teaches that the open-ring design allows the device to be “installed on the pipeline from a side of the pipeline” (Chang472, [0032]), demonstrating the well-known advantage of open-ring measurement configurations for linear workpieces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Della Vedova’s sensors (19, 20) in an open-ring arrangement when mounted on Roos’ robot hand (7) to allow the measuring device to be easily positioned around the rolled material (11) without interrupting the rolling process. This configuration provides:
Ease of positioning: The open-ring can be inserted laterally around the material (11) without requiring the material to be threaded through the device;
Circumferential measurement: Sensors distributed along the ring extension provide measurement data around the material’s cross-section, enabling detection of section dimensions and surface defects as taught by Della Vedova;
Non-interference with production: The open configuration allows insertion and extraction between rolling mill stands (12, 13) without stopping material flow; and
Modular flexibility: The ring-mounted sensor array can be easily attached to and removed from the robot hand (7) as contemplated by Roos’ teaching of “various types of measuring devices.”
This combination yields entirely predictable results: a mobile robotic system positions an open-ring sensor array around rolled material between rolling mill stands to perform circumferential measurements of section and surface characteristics. Each element performs its known function in a predictable manner, and the combination addresses the stated problem of safely measuring rolled material at multiple locations without production interruption.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855