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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 12/08/205, regarding the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Gupta et al. US 20220032461 A1 (“Gupta”) in combination with Naderer US 20210078135 A1 (“Naderer”) and Sugayama US 20190001596 A1 (“Sugayama”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art references do not teach the elements “obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface” and “a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion,” and “based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface”. After discussing the matter with other examiners, the examiner has determined that regarding the element “obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface;” Sugayama teaches this element in FIGS. 7A-7D and 8A-8D, where it is shown in FIG. 7A that the robot has to start a vertex at the processing portion of a workpiece farthest from the reference plane. Further, the target trajectories generated by Sugayama have to be based in part on the distance of the vertex from the reference surface and a cut amount of the processing portion as shown in FIGS. 7A-7D, particularly at 7B, where we’re shown the amount of material removed at each processing cut, wherein the amended claim language is implied if not inherent to the process that Sugayama teaches in FIGS. 7A-7D and 8A-8D. There is no way Sugayama could perform the processes shown in the figures without performing the steps described in the amended claim language, discussed in further detail below. Likewise, the dependent claims are also still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. US 20220032461 A1 (“Gupta”) in view of Naderer US 20210078135 A1 (“Naderer”) and Sugayama US 20190001596 A1 (“Sugayama”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. US 20220032461 A1 (“Gupta”) in view of Naderer US 20210078135 A1 (“Naderer”) and Sugayama US 20190001596 A1 (“Sugayama”).
Regarding Claim 1. Gupta teaches a robot system comprising:
a robot that removes a processing portion of an object by a tool (FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a robot according to some implementations. FIG. 11A shows an example of the tool, which can be a sanding tool, polishing tool, buffing tool, grinding tool, deburring tool, or a spraying tool [paragraph 60]); and
a controller that controls the robot, wherein
the controller is configured to perform operations comprising:
operation as a trajectory generator that generates a target trajectory of the tool tracing the processing portion (FIG. 9 illustrates a trajectory generation process implemented by a trajectory generating system according to some implementations [paragraph 15], the constraints for which can be set by an impedance controller or stored in one or more memory devices [paragraph 44]),
wherein operation as the trajectory generator comprises generating the target trajectory tracing a reference surface of the object on which the processing portion is present (As an example, a typical constraint violation function or parameter may operate well near a feasible region and may monotonically increase with respect to a distance from the feasible region boundary. In this example, well-behaved constraint violation function or parameters can guide the initial trajectory solution to the feasible region [paragraph 86]. Typically, one spline segment may be used to compute a joint motion trajectory required to trace the desired workspace curve [paragraph 78]), and
operation as the movement commander comprises moving the robot such that the tool removes the processing portion until reaching the reference surface ([paragraph 60]. It is implicit that the robot is removing material while grinding/sanding/polishing the surface material while it moves along the trajectory towards the reference surface),
operation as the trajectory generator comprises generating target trajectories each arranged at an interval in a direction toward the reference surface (In some implementations, the trajectory generation system may utilize a metric that quantifies how close or far a robot trajectory is from moving towards a singularity point or position and/or collisions points, which may be referred to as the impedance controller constraint or constraint parameter [paragraph 75], which in addition to the disclosure of paragraph 86 regarding the feasible region boundary, reads on arranging a target trajectory toward a reference surface. Further, in step 930, the trajectory generation system may analyze the one or more second robot trajectories to determine if the one or more second robot trajectories are of sufficient quality levels, as discussed above. If the one or more second robot trajectories are not of sufficient quality levels, the trajectory generation system may continue the trajectory generation process by 1) updating the trajectory parametric representation by adding spline segments and/or control points; 2) selecting an additional expanded set of constraints or constraint parameters (which includes the previously applied constraints or constraint parameters); and 3) generating one or more additional robot trajectories (in subsequent optimization stages) until one or more additional robot trajectories are determined to be of sufficient quality to be provided and/or then utilized by the robot [paragraph 57]. The trajectory generation system may utilize information gathered about the basin sizes to automatically design a sequence of constraint applications to minimize an expected computation time needed to identify the one or more successful robot trajectory. In some implementations, the trajectory generation system may develop a branch and bound search to identify an optimal sequence in which to apply constraints [paragraph 88]. Gupta is silent as to the order of such a sequence, but this is a matter of design choice), and
the target trajectories include a final target trajectory tracing the reference surface (FIG. 10 illustrates a successive constraint refinement process that may be utilized in generating a final robot trajectory according to some implementations [paragraph 59]).
Gupta does not teach:
the controller is also configured to perform operations comprising:
operation as a movement commander that executes position control for moving the robot such that the tool moves along the target trajectory while executing elasticity control for moving the robot such that the tool moves so as to deviate from the target trajectory according to reactive force from the object, wherein.
However, Naderer teaches:
the controller is also configured to perform operations comprising:
operation as a movement commander that executes position control for moving the robot such that the tool moves along the target trajectory while executing elasticity control for moving the robot such that the tool moves so as to deviate from the target trajectory according to reactive force from the object and pressing force of the tool on the object increases according to a distance from the target trajectory (FIG. 2 shows, in a diagram, the controlling of the rotational speed of the grinding tool in reaction to detecting a contact between the grinding tool and the work piece. FIG. 3 shows, in a diagram, the adjustment of the contact force and the controlling of the rotational speed of the grinding tool in reaction to detecting a contact between the grinding tool and the work piece [paragraphs 10-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Gupta with the controller is also configured to perform operations comprising: operation as a movement commander that executes position control for moving the robot such that the tool moves along the target trajectory while executing elasticity control for moving the robot such that the tool moves so as to deviate from the target trajectory according to reactive force from the object and pressing force of the tool on the object increases according to a distance from the target trajectory as taught by Naderer so as to allow the system of Gupta to counter the force of a target surface on the grinding tool.
Gupta also does not teach:
operation as the trajectory generator comprises:
obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface; and
operation as the movement commander comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the reference surface starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories, a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion, and
based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface.
However, Sugayama teaches:
operation as the trajectory generator comprises:
obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface (FIGS. 7A-7D show the processing tool starts on a workpiece at a vertex farthest from the reference surface); and
operation as the movement commander comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the reference surface starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories (A grindstone grinds a workpiece using the peripheral surface while rotating [paragraph 41]. By changing the grinding depth adjusted by the adjustment mechanism every round and further causing the second swingable frame 28 to move in parallel at a pitch shorter than the thickness of the peripheral surface of the grindstone 32 at a predetermined round timing, it becomes possible to perform layer-by-layer grinding (layer grinding) in which the workpiece is grinded into the bowl-like shape including the shaft center as the bottom [paragraph 42]. FIGS. 7A-7D, 8A-8D, and 9 are views schematically illustrating steps of layer grinding. A defective portion is removed in a step (2) in FIG. 12, and grinding is performed by scarf sanding in a step (3) in FIG. 12 while the grindstone revolves around a portion having a concave cross section. As illustrated in FIG. 7A, first, the grindstone 32 is positioned at the opening end of the concave portion by causing the pitch feed frame 24 to slide, and one-round grinding is performed at the position. A grinding width (layer distance) is 6 mm and, in contrast to this, the grinding depth of one round by the grindstone 32 (a difference between the lower end of the contact 30 and the lower end of the grindstone 32) is set to, e.g., 0.2 mm by operating the adjustment mechanism 28d. Note that the grindstone 32 is mounted so as to be inclined at about 2 degrees (1.9 degrees) relative to the vertical, and grinding is performed with the angle maintained. This is because, in a scarf sanding process, grinding at an inclination angle of 1:30 is a standard (see FIG. 7B) [paragraph 43]. This reads on moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next until reaching the final target trajectory to form the shape shown in FIG. 9), a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion (This is implied, if not inherent. The disclosure of FIG. 7B in particular shows that the sanding process removes a specific amount of material at each level, with a measurable distance at each layer. There is no way Sugayama could perform the processes shown in the figures without generating the trajectories based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex to be worked on from the surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion), and
based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface (FIG. 7D shows the robot stopping with a final trajectory wherein the trajectory is coincident with the reference surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Gupta with operation as the trajectory generator comprises: obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface; and operation as the movement commander comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the reference surface starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories, a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion, and based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface as taught by Sugayama so as to remove material in layers to avoid breaking the target workpiece.
Regarding Claim 4. Gupta in combination with Naderer and Sugayama teaches the robot system of claim 1.
Gupta also teaches:
wherein
operation as the movement commander comprises moving the tool along the one target trajectory to perform removal processing, and thereafter, performing the removal processing with the target trajectory switched to the next target trajectory for a predetermined completion condition being satisfied (The path generation can comprise generating a trajectory that satisfies physical and application specific constraints [paragraph 26]. Constraints in the trajectory can be predetermined and involve predetermined sequences in order to generate successful robot trajectories [paragraph 41]. The modeling impedance controller constraints module 430 is utilized to model issues with impedance control. In some implementations, an impedance controller may lose stability if a trajectory path passes through or very close to singularity and/or comes close to a collision. Accordingly, the trajectory generation system may generate a nominal trajectory that does not come close to singularity and/or also avoids collisions [paragraph 75], which means that a completion condition of the constraints may include the stability of a trajectory path, which reads on a completion condition) or moving the tool again along the one target trajectory to perform the removal processing for the completion condition being not satisfied (The surface of the sander may not be able to always maintain a constant point of contact. In some implementations, the robot trajectory system described herein, utilizing the modeling multiple tool center point constraints module 410 may adaptively change a tool center point in order to maintain contact. In this implementation, with the robot trajectory system having multiple tool center points, this may give additional flexibility for the robot while following the workspace path resulting in an increase of the robot's reachability space. In some implementations, the robot trajectory system may need to consider a transition continuity while switching between multiple tool center points, which may be referred to as multiple tool center point parameters and/or constraints [paragraph 76]).
Regarding Claim 5. Gupta in combination with Naderer and Sugayama teaches the robot system of claim 4.
Gupta also teaches:
wherein
the completion condition is that a parameter associated with the removal processing is stabilized (The modeling impedance controller constraints module 430 is utilized to model issues with impedance control. In some implementations, an impedance controller may lose stability if a trajectory path passes through or very close to singularity and/or comes close to a collision. Accordingly, the trajectory generation system may generate a nominal trajectory that does not come close to singularity and/or also avoids collisions [paragraph 75], which means that a completion condition of the constraints may include the stability of a trajectory path. By definition, stability of the removal process includes the stability of the trajectory path).
Regarding Claim 6. Gupta in combination with Naderer and Sugayama teaches the robot system of claim 5.
Gupta also teaches:
wherein
the parameter associated with the removal processing comprises at least one of a contact force of the tool on the object during the removal processing, a position of the tool during the removal processing, a speed of the tool during the removal processing, or an acceleration of the tool during the removal processing (The modeling impedance controller constraints module 430 is utilized to model issues with impedance control. In some implementations, an impedance controller may lose stability if a trajectory path passes through or very close to singularity and/or comes close to a collision. Accordingly, the trajectory generation system may generate a nominal trajectory that does not come close to singularity and/or also avoids collisions [paragraph 75], which means that a completion condition of the constraints may include the stability of a trajectory path, which reads on the parameter comprising at least one of a position of the tool during the removal processing. Joint limit and velocity have been considered as constraints [paragraph 37], so speed of a tool during the removal processing can also be used).
Additionally, and in the alternative, Naderer teaches:
wherein
the parameter associated with the removal processing comprises at least one of a contact force of the tool on the object during the removal processing (FIG. 2 shows, in a diagram, the controlling of the rotational speed of the grinding tool in reaction to detecting a contact between the grinding tool and the work piece. FIG. 3 shows, in a diagram, the adjustment of the contact force and the controlling of the rotational speed of the grinding tool in reaction to detecting a contact between the grinding tool and the work piece [paragraphs 10-11]. The diagrams in FIG. 3 illustrate an example of when the robot controller 4 not only reacts to the detection of a contact by raising the rotational speed of the grinding disc 11, but also with a controlled raising of the actuator force (the force exerted by the actuator onto the surface), beginning from an adjustable minimal force and ending at the desired contact force [paragraph 21], which reads on the parameter comprising contact force of the tool on the object during the removal processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Gupta with wherein the parameter associated with the removal processing comprises at least one of a contact force of the tool on the object during the removal processing as taught by Naderer so as to allow the system to ensure that the tool is applying enough force to remove material from the target surface.
Regarding Claim 7. Gupta teaches a robot processing method comprising:
generating a target trajectory of a tool of a robot tracing a processing portion of an object (FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a robot according to some implementations. FIG. 11A shows an example of the tool, which can be a sanding tool, polishing tool, buffing tool, grinding tool, deburring tool, or a spraying tool [paragraph 60]);
executing position control for moving the robot such that the tool moves along the target trajectory (FIG. 9 illustrates a trajectory generation process implemented by a trajectory generating system according to some implementations [paragraph 15], the constraints for which can be set by an impedance controller or stored in one or more memory devices [paragraph 44]),
generating the target trajectory tracing a reference surface of the object on which the processing portion is present (FIG. 9 illustrates a trajectory generation process implemented by a trajectory generating system according to some implementations [paragraph 15], the constraints for which can be set by an impedance controller or stored in one or more memory devices [paragraph 44]),
moving the robot such that the tool removes the processing portion until reaching the reference surface ([paragraph 60]. It is implicit that the robot is removing material while grinding/sanding/polishing the surface material while it moves along the trajectory towards the reference surface),
generating target trajectories each arranged at an interval from one another in a direction toward the reference surface (In some implementations, the trajectory generation system may utilize a metric that quantifies how close or far a robot trajectory is from moving towards a singularity point or position and/or collisions points, which may be referred to as the impedance controller constraint or constraint parameter [paragraph 75], which in addition to the disclosure of paragraph 86 regarding the feasible region boundary, reads on arranging a target trajectory toward a reference surface. Further, in step 930, the trajectory generation system may analyze the one or more second robot trajectories to determine if the one or more second robot trajectories are of sufficient quality levels, as discussed above. If the one or more second robot trajectories are not of sufficient quality levels, the trajectory generation system may continue the trajectory generation process by 1) updating the trajectory parametric representation by adding spline segments and/or control points; 2) selecting an additional expanded set of constraints or constraint parameters (which includes the previously applied constraints or constraint parameters); and 3) generating one or more additional robot trajectories (in subsequent optimization stages) until one or more additional robot trajectories are determined to be of sufficient quality to be provided and/or then utilized by the robot [paragraph 57]. The trajectory generation system may utilize information gathered about the basin sizes to automatically design a sequence of constraint applications to minimize an expected computation time needed to identify the one or more successful robot trajectory. In some implementations, the trajectory generation system may develop a branch and bound search to identify an optimal sequence in which to apply constraints [paragraph 88]. Gupta is silent as to the order of such a sequence, but this is a matter of design choice), wherein the target trajectories include a final target trajectory tracing the reference surface (FIG. 10 illustrates a successive constraint refinement process that may be utilized in generating a final robot trajectory according to some implementations [paragraph 59]).
Gupta does not teach:
executing, in parallel with the position control, elasticity control for moving the robot such that the tool moves so as to deviate from the target trajectory according to reactive force from the object.
However, Naderer teaches:
executing, in parallel with the position control, elasticity control for moving the robot such that the tool moves so as to deviate from the target trajectory according to reactive force from the object (FIG. 2 shows, in a diagram, the controlling of the rotational speed of the grinding tool in reaction to detecting a contact between the grinding tool and the work piece. FIG. 3 shows, in a diagram, the adjustment of the contact force and the controlling of the rotational speed of the grinding tool in reaction to detecting a contact between the grinding tool and the work piece [paragraphs 10-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Gupta with executing, in parallel with the position control, elasticity control for moving the robot such that the tool moves so as to deviate from the target trajectory according to reactive force from the object and pressing force of the tool on the object increases according to a distance from the target trajectory as taught by Naderer so as to allow the system of Gupta to counter the force of a target surface on the grinding tool.
Gupta also does not teach:
operation as the trajectory generator comprises:
obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface; and
executing position control comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the target trajectory starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories, a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion, and
based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface.
However, Sugayama teaches:
operation as the trajectory generator comprises:
obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface (FIGS. 7A-7D show the processing tool starts on a workpiece at a vertex farthest from the reference surface); and
executing position control comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the reference surface starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories (A grindstone grinds a workpiece using the peripheral surface while rotating [paragraph 41]. By changing the grinding depth adjusted by the adjustment mechanism every round and further causing the second swingable frame 28 to move in parallel at a pitch shorter than the thickness of the peripheral surface of the grindstone 32 at a predetermined round timing, it becomes possible to perform layer-by-layer grinding (layer grinding) in which the workpiece is grinded into the bowl-like shape including the shaft center as the bottom [paragraph 42]. FIGS. 7A-7D, 8A-8D, and 9 are views schematically illustrating steps of layer grinding. A defective portion is removed in a step (2) in FIG. 12, and grinding is performed by scarf sanding in a step (3) in FIG. 12 while the grindstone revolves around a portion having a concave cross section. As illustrated in FIG. 7A, first, the grindstone 32 is positioned at the opening end of the concave portion by causing the pitch feed frame 24 to slide, and one-round grinding is performed at the position. A grinding width (layer distance) is 6 mm and, in contrast to this, the grinding depth of one round by the grindstone 32 (a difference between the lower end of the contact 30 and the lower end of the grindstone 32) is set to, e.g., 0.2 mm by operating the adjustment mechanism 28d. Note that the grindstone 32 is mounted so as to be inclined at about 2 degrees (1.9 degrees) relative to the vertical, and grinding is performed with the angle maintained. This is because, in a scarf sanding process, grinding at an inclination angle of 1:30 is a standard (see FIG. 7B) [paragraph 43]. This reads on moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next until reaching the final target trajectory to form the shape shown in FIG. 9), a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion (This is implied, if not inherent. The disclosure of FIG. 7B in particular shows that the sanding process removes a specific amount of material at each level, with a measurable distance at each layer. There is no way Sugayama could perform the processes shown in the figures without generating the trajectories based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex to be worked on from the surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion), and
based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface (FIG. 7D shows the robot stopping with a final trajectory wherein the trajectory is coincident with the reference surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Gupta with operation as the trajectory generator comprises: obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface; and operation as the movement commander comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the reference surface starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories, a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion, and based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface as taught by Sugayama so as to remove material in layers to avoid breaking the target workpiece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Gupta with operation as the trajectory generator comprises: obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface; and executing position control comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the target trajectory starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories, a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion, and based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface as taught by Sugayama so as to remove material in layers to avoid breaking the target workpiece.
Regarding Claim 9. Gupta teaches a non-transitory storage medium (paragraph 96) storing a processing program for causing a robot to remove a processing portion of an object (FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a robot according to some implementations. FIG. 11A shows an example of the tool, which can be a sanding tool, polishing tool, buffing tool, grinding tool, deburring tool, or a spraying tool [paragraph 60]), the processing program, when read and executed causing a computer to perform operations comprising:
generating a target trajectory of a tool of the robot tracing the processing portion of the object executing position control for moving the robot such that the tool moves along the target trajectory portion (FIG. 9 illustrates a trajectory generation process implemented by a trajectory generating system according to some implementations [paragraph 15], the constraints for which can be set by an impedance controller or stored in one or more memory devices [paragraph 44]),
generating the target trajectory tracing a reference surface of the object on which the processing portion is present (FIG. 9 illustrates a trajectory generation process implemented by a trajectory generating system according to some implementations [paragraph 15], the constraints for which can be set by an impedance controller or stored in one or more memory devices [paragraph 44]),
moving the robot such that the tool removes the processing portion until reaching the reference surface ([paragraph 60]. It is implicit that the robot is removing material while grinding/sanding/polishing the surface material while it moves along the trajectory towards the reference surface),
generating target trajectories each arranged at an interval from one another in a direction toward the reference surface (In some implementations, the trajectory generation system may utilize a metric that quantifies how close or far a robot trajectory is from moving towards a singularity point or position and/or collisions points, which may be referred to as the impedance controller constraint or constraint parameter [paragraph 75], which in addition to the disclosure of paragraph 86 regarding the feasible region boundary, reads on arranging a target trajectory toward a reference surface. Further, in step 930, the trajectory generation system may analyze the one or more second robot trajectories to determine if the one or more second robot trajectories are of sufficient quality levels, as discussed above. If the one or more second robot trajectories are not of sufficient quality levels, the trajectory generation system may continue the trajectory generation process by 1) updating the trajectory parametric representation by adding spline segments and/or control points; 2) selecting an additional expanded set of constraints or constraint parameters (which includes the previously applied constraints or constraint parameters); and 3) generating one or more additional robot trajectories (in subsequent optimization stages) until one or more additional robot trajectories are determined to be of sufficient quality to be provided and/or then utilized by the robot [paragraph 57]. The trajectory generation system may utilize information gathered about the basin sizes to automatically design a sequence of constraint applications to minimize an expected computation time needed to identify the one or more successful robot trajectory. In some implementations, the trajectory generation system may develop a branch and bound search to identify an optimal sequence in which to apply constraints [paragraph 88]. Gupta is silent as to the order of such a sequence, but this is a matter of design choice), wherein
the target trajectories include a final target trajectory tracing the reference surface (FIG. 10 illustrates a successive constraint refinement process that may be utilized in generating a final robot trajectory according to some implementations [paragraph 59]).
Gupta does not teach:
executing, in parallel with the position control, elasticity control for moving the robot such that the tool moves so as to deviate from the target trajectory according to reactive force from the object and pressing force of the tool on the object increases according to a distance from the target trajectory.
However, Naderer teaches:
executing, in parallel with the position control, elasticity control for moving the robot such that the tool moves so as to deviate from the target trajectory according to reactive force from the object and pressing force of the tool on the object increases according to a distance from the target trajectory (FIG. 2 shows, in a diagram, the controlling of the rotational speed of the grinding tool in reaction to detecting a contact between the grinding tool and the work piece. FIG. 3 shows, in a diagram, the adjustment of the contact force and the controlling of the rotational speed of the grinding tool in reaction to detecting a contact between the grinding tool and the work piece [paragraphs 10-11]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Gupta with executing, in parallel with the position control, elasticity control for moving the robot such that the tool moves so as to deviate from the target trajectory according to reactive force from the object and pressing force of the tool on the object increases according to a distance from the target trajectory as taught by Naderer so as to allow the system of Gupta to counter the force of a target surface on the grinding tool.
Gupta also does not teach:
operation as the trajectory generator comprises:
obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface; and
executing position control comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the target trajectory starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion, and
based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface.
However, Sugayama teaches:
operation as the trajectory generator comprises:
obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface (FIGS. 7A-7D show the processing tool starts on a workpiece at a vertex farthest from the reference surface); and
executing position control comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the target trajectory starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories (A grindstone grinds a workpiece using the peripheral surface while rotating [paragraph 41]. By changing the grinding depth adjusted by the adjustment mechanism every round and further causing the second swingable frame 28 to move in parallel at a pitch shorter than the thickness of the peripheral surface of the grindstone 32 at a predetermined round timing, it becomes possible to perform layer-by-layer grinding (layer grinding) in which the workpiece is grinded into the bowl-like shape including the shaft center as the bottom [paragraph 42]. FIGS. 7A-7D, 8A-8D, and 9 are views schematically illustrating steps of layer grinding. A defective portion is removed in a step (2) in FIG. 12, and grinding is performed by scarf sanding in a step (3) in FIG. 12 while the grindstone revolves around a portion having a concave cross section. As illustrated in FIG. 7A, first, the grindstone 32 is positioned at the opening end of the concave portion by causing the pitch feed frame 24 to slide, and one-round grinding is performed at the position. A grinding width (layer distance) is 6 mm and, in contrast to this, the grinding depth of one round by the grindstone 32 (a difference between the lower end of the contact 30 and the lower end of the grindstone 32) is set to, e.g., 0.2 mm by operating the adjustment mechanism 28d. Note that the grindstone 32 is mounted so as to be inclined at about 2 degrees (1.9 degrees) relative to the vertical, and grinding is performed with the angle maintained. This is because, in a scarf sanding process, grinding at an inclination angle of 1:30 is a standard (see FIG. 7B) [paragraph 43]. This reads on moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next until reaching the final target trajectory to form the shape shown in FIG. 9), a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion (This is implied, if not inherent. The disclosure of FIG. 7B in particular shows that the sanding process removes a specific amount of material at each level, with a measurable distance at each layer. There is no way Sugayama could perform the processes shown in the figures without generating the trajectories based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex to be worked on from the surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion), and
based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface (FIG. 7D shows the robot stopping with a final trajectory wherein the trajectory is coincident with the reference surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Gupta with operation as the trajectory generator comprises: obtaining a vertex of the processing portion farthest from the reference surface; and executing position control comprises moving the robot sequentially from one target trajectory to a next target trajectory toward the target trajectory starting from a first of the target trajectories farthest from the reference surface to the final target trajectory, such that the tool moves along each of the target trajectories a number of the target trajectories is generated based on a distance of the tool from the reference surface, a distance of the vertex from the reference surface, and a cut amount of the processing portion, and based on the next target trajectory being coincident with or positioned lower than the reference surface, operation as the trajectory generator further comprises generating, the final target trajectory that traces the reference surface as taught by Sugayama so as to remove material in layers to avoid breaking the target workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656