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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response dated 12/10/2025 has been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23/10/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims now refer to Goller et al (US Pub 2020/0108506 A1). Please refer to the rejection below. Goller performs calibration techniques while the robot is performing the work, and the examiner believes this reference is required to address the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments that Claim 6 is allowable is found unpersuasive. While the displacement amount must be acquired while the robot is in the machine tool, it does not necessarily need to be performing work. It could still be preparing to perform work (claim 6 still cites that the initial positioning is while or before entering the tool, and it is not explicitly stated that moving into the machine tool would constitute work or a task being done). It could simply be preparing to work from a location that is closer to the task at hand (inside the workspace). As such, the examiner still relies on Nishi for claim 6, but not Goller.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (US Pub 2018/0093380 A1), hereafter known as Yoshida in light of Ueda et al (US Pub 2017/0203434 A1), hereafter known as Ueda in light of Goller et al (US Pub 2020/0108506 A1), hereafter known as Goller.
For Claim 1, Yoshida teaches A robot system comprising:
a robot; ([0006], Figure 1)
a robot conveying device on which the robot is mounted, for moving the robot to a workspace; ([0006-0007], Figure 1)
at least two target marks installed in the workspace; ([0007], [0032-0033], Figures 1 and 2)
a vision sensor provided on the robot, the vision sensor configured to perform stereoscopic measurement of the at least two target marks and configured to obtain a three-dimensional position of the at least two target marks; and ([0009-0013], [0036-0037], [0090-0099])
a controller configured to: ([0034])
executing a program to calculate a displacement amount between the robot and a desired relative position in the workspace, based on the three- dimensional position, and (Figure 4, Figure 7, [0009], [0013], [0036-0037], [0040-0043], [0062-0064], [0090-0099])
moving the robot using a value corrected from a prescribed operation amount, using the displacement amount. ([0036], [0038], [0043-0044], [0052])
wherein one of the at least two target marks is measured and a position thereof is obtained before performing work, and in a case where the displacement amount exceeds a preset threshold value, the at least two target marks in the workspace at a current time are measured and the displacement amount is reacquired. (Figure 4, [0038-0045], [0062], [0072-0073]. Before the work is done, the system can determine if the robot is within the determination range, and move and recalculate if it is not. Threshold values can be used for the displacement amount.)
Yoshida does not teach a controller configured to execute an operation program to operate the robot using a value corrected from a prescribed operation amount, using the acquired displacement amount.
That the marks are measured and position is determined while performing work.
Ueda, however, does teach a controller configured to execute an operation program to operate the robot using a value corrected from a prescribed operation amount, using the acquired displacement amount. ([0028-0030], [0080-0084])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Yoshida in light of Ueda so that the robot is controlled using the correction value because it would allow the robot to be moved to a corrected or desired location instead of having to have a operator perform the task. Additionally, if the robotic arm is offset from its desired location but still close enough to perform the task, controlling it to perform the operation using the displacement amount would prevent the robotic arm’s cart to be moved at all while still allowing for previously determined movement or location data to be made useful.
Goller, however, does teach that the marks are measured and position is determined while performing work. ([0008] A first approach for determining the position and orientation of the end effector of a robot as accurately as possible is that of constantly (re)calibrating a robot control model during a working process. In this case, the control model of the robot, by way of which all of the motion sequences of the robot are controlled, is constantly recalibrated during a working process by measurements on objects in space (what are known as artefacts) whose respective position in space is known. Such (re)calibration is necessary for example in order to at least partly compensate temperature-induced material expansion of individual parts of the robot. Such material expansions are caused for example by heating of individual parts of the robot during the working process.
[0056] This exemplary embodiment is advantageous in particular when the robot is a measurement robot for the tactile and/or optical measurement of a workpiece. The tactile and/or optical measurement sensor in this case samples the workpiece to be measured. The tactile and/or optical measurement sensor may however also be used to continuously recalibrate the robot during a measurement process based on artefacts. Such an exemplary embodiment is additionally advantageous since for example, during a working process, the tactile and/or the optical measurement sensor may be used to check a required minimum distance between the end effector and a workpiece, for example a bodywork part, and to comply therewith.)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Yoshida in light of Goller such that the marks are measured and position is determined while performing work because in a situation in which the robot is displaced during the operation, either due to the work itself or outside factors and its location and position data is now inaccurate, making sure that the system has access to this information and can take a corrective action (reset, have the base moved to a correct location, or merely pause the work) would be useful in preventing the robot from performing inaccurate work that may be useless or may be counterproductive to its regular task.
For Claim 2, Yoshida teaches The robot system according to claim 1, wherein
the vision sensor is provided on a movable part of the robot. ([0009]. The vision sensor can be on the robotic wrist)
For Claim 3, Yoshida teaches The robot system according to claim 1 wherein
the at least two target marks comprise at least three target marks installed in the workspace, ([0097]. Three marks are possible)
the vision sensor is provided on a hand section of the robot, and ([0099]. The sensor can be attached to the distal end of the robot (the hand)).
Yoshida does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to perform a three-dimensional correction and operate the robot.
Ueda, however, does teach the controller is configured to perform a three-dimensional correction and operate the robot. ([0028-0030], [0058], [0069], [0080-0084])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Yoshida in light of Ueda so that the robot performs a three dimensional correction and operates the robot. It would be obvious to do this because if the known position of the robot has deviated from where it is expected to be, updating the position (or correcting it) would allow the robot to either move to the correct place, or understand where it currently is. Operating the robot would then allow it to perform its programmed task, which is the purpose of the robot.
For Claim 4, Yoshida teaches The robot system according to claim l, wherein
an operation program for the robot, an image processing program including measuring settings for the vision sensor and a program for calculating the displacement amount, and camera calibration data for the vision sensor are set and packaged in advance. ([0010], [0060-0062], [0068] [0071-0072], [0076], [0080])
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in light of Ueda in light of Nishi et al (US Pub 2016/0151915 A1), hereafter known as Nishi.
For Claim 6, Yoshida teaches A robot system comprising:
a robot; ([0006], Figure 1)
a robot conveying device on which the robot is mounted, for moving the robot to a workspace; ([0006-0007], Figure 1)
at least two target marks installed in the workspace; ([0007], [0032-0033], Figures 1 and 2)
a vision sensor provided on the robot, the vision sensor configured to perform stereoscopic measurement of the at least two target marks and configured to obtain a three-dimensional position of the at least two target marks; and ([0009-0013], [0036-0037], [0090-0099])
a controller configured to: ([0034])
execute a program to calculate a displacement amount between the robot and a desired relative position in the workspace, based on the three-dimensional position, and (Figure 4, Figure 7, [0009], [0013], [0036-0037], [0040-0043], [0062-0064], [0090-0099])
move the robot using a value corrected from a prescribed operation amount, using the displacement amount, ([0036], [0038], [0043-0044], [0052])
wherein positioning is performed using the at least two target marks provided on a machine tool that is the workspace while or before the robot enters the machine tool, ([0009-0013], [0036-0037], [0090-0099]) and
Yoshida does not teach a robot control unit for operating the robot using a value corrected from a prescribed operation amount, using the acquired displacement amount.
then the robot enters the machine tool that is the workspace and obtains the displacement amount of the machine tool using the at least two target marks provided in an interior of the machine tool.
Ueda, however, does teach a configured to: execute an operation program to operate the robot using a value corrected from a prescribed operation amount, using the acquired displacement amount. ([0028-0030], [0080-0084])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Yoshida in light of Ueda so that the robot is controlled using the correction value because it would allow the robot to be moved to a corrected or desired location instead of having to have a operator perform the task. Additionally, if the robotic arm is offset from its desired location but still close enough to perform the task, controlling it to perform the operation using the displacement amount would prevent the robotic arm’s cart to be moved at all while still allowing for previously determined movement or location data to be made useful.
Nishi, however, does teach then the robot is inside the machine tool that is the workspace and obtains the displacement amount of the machine tool using the at least two target marks provided in an interior of the machine tool. ([0059-0066], Figures 3-9, Figures 15-18, [0124-0130])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Yoshida in light of Nishi such that then the robot enters the machine tool that is the workspace and obtains the displacement amount of the machine tool using the target marks provided in an interior of the machine tool.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Yoshida in this way because the task of generally setting the robot’s position outside of the workplace might require less precision than the actual work that is performed inside the workplace. By having further calibration to the markers once inside the workspace, the system can ensure that it is at a correct location right before it performs its primary function. It would be valuable to use marks provided in the interior, because exterior markers might not be visible once the robot is within the workspace.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in light of Ueda in light of Nishi in light of Yui et al (US Pub 2019/0314998 A1), hereafter known as Yui.
For Claim 7, Yoshida teaches The robot system according to claim 6, wherein
Yoshida does not teach before the robot enters the machine tool, an alarm is issued when a space between the robot and the machine tool becomes equal to or less than a preset threshold value.
Yui, however, does teach an alarm is issued when a space between the robot and an object becomes equal to or less than a preset threshold value. ([0019])
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Yoshida in light of Yui such that before the robot enters the machine tool, an alarm is issued when a space between the robot and the machine tool becomes equal to or less than a preset threshold value.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Yoshida in light of Yui to do this because when robotic arms collide with any object, including a machine tool, there is a potential for harm or damage, especially if the collision or interaction is not intended. By having an alarm be issued if the robot is too close to the machine too, the operator can halt operation of the machine and reset it, or change the trajectory so that it does not collide with the machine tool.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Close et al (US Pub 2006/0074525 A1), relates to markers inside of working spaces.
Okita et al (US Pub 2016/0091892 A1) relates to markers inside of working spaces.
Dimaio et al (US Pub 2019/0231460 A1) relates to alerts when the position of the robot is not optimal.
Goller et al (US Pub 2020/0108506 A1) relates to markers being located inside of work spaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISTAN J GREINER whose telephone number is (571)272-1382. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, Tran Khoi can be reached on Monday-Thursday. 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.
/T.J.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656