DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-11, 13-19, and 22-24 are pending and are addressed below.
Status of Claims
Claims 12 and 20-21 are cancelled, claims 23-24 are new, and claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, and 22 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-11, 13-19, and 22-24 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered as below.
A copy of the Lachmayer et al. (NPL “Contour Tracking Control for Mobile Robots applicable to Large-scale Assembly and Additive Manufacturing in Construction”) with publication date of 10 March 2022 is provided.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 to the claims, Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-17 of Remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, in light of newly found prior art, which was necessitated based on Applicant's amendments which changed the scope of the claims.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 to claim 22, Applicant’s arguments, see page 16 of Remarks, have been considered and are persuasive in view of amendments. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC 101 to claim 22 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112 to claims 3 and 9-10, Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-17 of Remarks, have been considered and are persuasive in view of amendments. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC 112 to claims 3 and 9-10 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant provides the claim limitation, ” the control system is to adjust the robot according to the path correction”, however, the claim limitation should read “the control system is configured to adjust the robot according to the path correction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control system …” in claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17, and 23-24;
“determiner …” in claims 14-17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11, 13-14, 17-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachmayer et al. (NPL “Contour Tracking Control for Mobile Robots applicable to Large-scale Assembly and Additive Manufacturing in Construction”, hereinafter “Lachmayer”), and further in view of Zhou et al. (WO2022068408A1, hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding claim 1, Lachmayer discloses a method of interacting with a workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 1, page 110, col. 1, lines 19-31), comprising:
providing a mobile robot comprising an end effector and a tracker (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2, page 110, col. 2, lines 4-29, providing a mobile robot comprising manipulator and laser scanner adding to the end-effector of the manipulator and two sensors at the opposite corners of the platform of the mobile robot);
wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2, page 110, col. 2, lines 4-29, providing a mobile robot comprising manipulator and laser scanner adding to the end-effector of the manipulator)
interacting the end effector with the workpiece and tracking the workpiece by the first laser line scanner (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 1, 4, page 111, col. 1, lines 1-16, “Our contour tracking algorithm consists of two parts. In the first part, the respective contour is detected. In the second part, we control the robot to follow the contour while correcting height deviations in the previous layers”, “We first use the 2D laser-scanner for contour tracking to get a contour profile close to the tool …”); and
when the mobile robot is transporting in a transporting direction across the ground relative to the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 1, 3, page 113, section 7, “The experiments presented in this paper demonstrate the viability of a contour tracking controller for enabling a mobile robot to perform production tasks while moving”) such that the first is tracking a first region of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, col. 1, lines 1-10, “The scanner is oriented in the machining direction of the tool so that the contour can be seen in front of the tool. While moving the robot, we create 200 laser profiles per second. From each profile, we calculate basic geometric features like height, width, or volume to estimate the contour’s deviation from a target contour”), adjusting the mobile robot (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 5, page 111, col. 1, lines 10-12, “This deviation is transformed into the robot’s coordinate system and added to the velocity control loop as an offset”, col. 2, lines 6-9, “…adjust the feed rate by slowing down or speeding up the platform along the contour (x-direction)”), by a control system (Lachmayer, see at least page 110, col. 2, “A central computer controls all components by using the Robot Operating System (ROS)”) and according to feedback from the first (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 5, abstract, “The laser is mounted to the robot’s end-effector and provides a depth profile of the component’s surface”; pages 111-112, “From each profile, we calculate basic geometric features like height, width, or volume to estimate the contour’s deviation from a target contour. This deviation is transformed into the robot’s coordinate system and added to the velocity control loop as an offset”, see equation (3)), to effect a position of the end effector relative to the workpiece to maintain interaction of the end effector with the second region of the workpiece trailing the first region in the transporting direction (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, abstract, “From this depth data, we determine the target contour and control the manipulator to follow it. Simultaneously we vary the robot’s speed to adjust the feed rate depending on the contour’s shape, maintaining a constant material application rate”; pages 111-112, control the robot’s end effector to follow the contour of the workpiece while correcting height deviations in the previous layers based on scanning data from the sensor that is tracking the contour in front of the end effector).
Lachmayer fails to explicitly teach wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner and a second laser line scanner for tracking a first region of the workpiece and adjusting the mobile robot according to feedback from the first and second laser line scanners.
PNG
media_image1.png
188
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
277
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Zhou Figs. 1, 9)
Zhou teaches a robot comprises an end effector 10 and two laser sensors 2 that are mounted on an end of the robotic arm 10 (Zhou, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0079]); the two laser sensors 2 are configured to track a surface 9 in a first region of the surface 9, i.e. the forward direction of the end effector 10 (Zhou, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0088]) and to provide tracking sensor to a controller for adjusting posture of the end effector 10 relative to the surface 9 to maintain interaction of the end effector 10 with a second region of the surface 9 trailing the first region in the moving direction (Zhou, see at least Fig. 10, par. [0091-0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Lachmayer to include, wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner and a second laser line scanner for tracking a first region of the workpiece and adjusting the mobile robot according to feedback from the first and second laser line scanners, as taught by Zhou. This modification would allow to adjusting the robot relative to the surface more accurately according to sensor data from the two laser sensors (Zhou, see at least par. [0090]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein the interacting comprises providing a layer of continuous surface treatment on the workpiece on the basis of the interaction between the end effector with the workpiece when the mobile robot is transporting in the transporting direction (Lachmayer et al., see at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, the interacting comprises providing a layer of continuous PU foam layer on the workpiece based on adjusting the position of the end effector relative to the contour of the workpiece and the speed of the mobile robot along the contour).
Regarding claim 5, Lachmayer discloses a mobile robot for interacting with a workpiece as the mobile robot transports across the ground relative to the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, pages 110-111, a mobile robot for interacting with a workpiece as the mobile robot transports across the ground along a contour of the workpiece (x-direction)), the mobile robot comprising:
a tracker for tracking the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 2, 4, page 110, col. 2, lines 4-29, providing a mobile robot comprising manipulator and laser scanner adding to the end-effector of the manipulator and two sensors at the opposite corners of the platform of the mobile robot);
wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2, page 110, col. 2, lines 4-29, providing a mobile robot comprising manipulator and laser scanner adding to the end-effector of the manipulator)
an end effector for interacting with the workpiece based on feedback from the first (Lachmayer, see at least page 110, “Specifically, our method can correct the platform and robot position relative to a given 2D contour of the workpiece. We record the necessary data with a high-precision 2D laser scanner attached to the end-effector of the manipulator. Based on real-time 2D profile recognition, correction values for the position of the tool are determined. These position offsets are converted into velocity feedforward values and transferred to the manipulator and the mobile platform using a PI-controller”); and
a control system (Lachmayer, see at least page 110, col. 2, “A central computer controls all components by using the Robot Operating System (ROS)”) configured such that when the mobile robot is transporting in a transporting direction across the ground relative to the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, the mobile robot is transporting along the contour of the workpiece (x-direction)) such that the first is tracking a first region of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, “The scanner is oriented in the machining direction of the tool so that the contour can be seen in front of the tool. While moving the robot, we create 200 laser profiles per second”), the control system causes the mobile robot to adjust according to the feedback from the first (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 5, page 111, “adjust the feed rate by slowing down or speeding up the platform along the contour (x-direction)”) and effect a position of the end effector when interacting the end effector with the second region of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, abstract, “From this depth data, we determine the target contour and control the manipulator to follow it. Simultaneously we vary the robot’s speed to adjust the feed rate depending on the contour’s shape, maintaining a constant material application rate”; pages 111-112, control the robot’s end effector to follow the contour of the workpiece while correcting height deviations in the previous layers based on scanning data from the sensor that is tracking the contour in front of the end effector).
Lachmayer fails to explicitly teach wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner and a second laser line scanner for tracking a first region of the workpiece and adjusting the mobile robot according to feedback from the first and second laser line scanners.
Zhou teaches a robot comprises an end effector 10 and two laser sensors 2 that are mounted on an end of the robotic arm 10 (Zhou, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0079]); the two laser sensors 2 are configured to track a surface 9 in a first region of the surface 9, i.e. the forward direction of the end effector 10 (Zhou, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0088]) and to provide tracking sensor to a controller for adjusting posture of the end effector 10 relative to the surface 9 to maintain interaction of the end effector 10 with a second region of the surface 9 trailing the first region in the moving direction (Zhou, see at least Figs. 1, 10, par. [0091-0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of Lachmayer to include, wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner and a second laser line scanner for tracking a first region of the workpiece and adjusting the mobile robot according to feedback from the first and second laser line scanners, as taught by Zhou. This modification would allow to adjusting the robot relative to the surface more accurately according to sensor data from the two laser sensors (Zhou, see at least par. [0090]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein the tracker is configured to track the workpiece by measuring the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 5, abstract, “The laser is mounted to the robot’s end-effector and provides a depth profile of the component’s surface”; pages 111-112, “While moving the robot, we create 200 laser profiles per second. From each profile, we calculate basic geometric features like height, width, or volume to estimate the contour’s deviation from a target contour. This deviation is transformed into the robot’s coordinate system and added to the velocity control loop as an offset”), and the control system is configured to adjust the mobile robot such that the end effector tracks the workpiece according to information identified about the workpiece on the basis of measurements by the tracker (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, abstract, “From this depth data, we determine the target contour and control the manipulator to follow it. Simultaneously we vary the robot’s speed to adjust the feed rate depending on the contour’s shape, maintaining a constant material application rate”; pages 111-112, “From each profile, we calculate basic geometric features like height, width, or volume to estimate the contour’s deviation from a target contour. This deviation is transformed into the robot’s coordinate system and added to the velocity control loop as an offset … Using ∆d we adjust this pre-planned manipulator trajectory to account for lateral deviations (y-direction) from the target path (see Fig. 5) …”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claims 5 and 6 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein, on the basis of the measurements by the tracker (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, “The scanner is oriented in the machining direction of the tool so that the contour can be seen in front of the tool. While moving the robot, we create 200 laser profiles per second. From each profile, we calculate basic geometric features like height, width, or volume to estimate the contour’s deviation from a target contour”), the control system is configured to adjust the mobile robot such that the end effector tracks the workpiece according to a determined datum point formed by a plurality of identifiable features of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, abstract, “From this depth data, we determine the target contour and control the manipulator to follow it. Simultaneously we vary the robot’s speed to adjust the feed rate depending on the contour’s shape, maintaining a constant material application rate”; pages 111-112, “From each profile, we calculate basic geometric features like height, width, or volume to estimate the contour’s deviation from a target contour. This deviation is transformed into the robot’s coordinate system and added to the velocity control loop as an offset … Using ∆d we adjust this pre-planned manipulator trajectory to account for lateral deviations (y-direction) from the target path (see Fig. 5) …”. If the tracker, i.e. 2D laser-scanner can measure the workpiece according to detected surface information, then the tracker can also detect the markings include all intersections of the workpiece).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claims 5-7 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein the determined datum point is an intersection of a plurality of notional features produced according to the plurality of identifiable features of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, abstract, “From this depth data, we determine the target contour and control the manipulator to follow it. Simultaneously we vary the robot’s speed to adjust the feed rate depending on the contour’s shape, maintaining a constant material application rate”; pages 111-112, “From each profile, we calculate basic geometric features like height, width, or volume to estimate the contour’s deviation from a target contour. This deviation is transformed into the robot’s coordinate system and added to the velocity control loop as an offset … Using ∆d we adjust this pre-planned manipulator trajectory to account for lateral deviations (y-direction) from the target path (see Fig. 5) …”. If the tracker, i.e. 2D laser-scanner can measure the workpiece according to detected surface information, then the tracker can also detect the markings include all intersections of the workpiece).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claims 5 and 6 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein the control system is configured to adjust the mobile robot such that the end effector tracks the workpiece according to the information identified about the workpiece on the basis of measurements obtained by the first laser line scanner and the second laser line scanner (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, pages 111-112, control the robot’s end effector to follow the contour of the workpiece while correcting height deviations in the previous layers based on scanning data from the sensor that is tracking the contour in front of the end effector; Bamford, see at least Figs. 1, 2, pages 5-10, 28-35, the controller is configured to locate, orientate and position the robotic apparatus in relation to work object based on detected data obtained by the first optical system and the second optical system).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein the end effector comprises an applicator for applying a sealant to the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 1, 4, the end effector comprises a spray gun for applying PU foam to the workpiece), and the control system is configured to cause the end effector to interact with the workpiece by applying the sealant (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 1, 2, page 110, “We attached a PU foam gun to the manipulator of our robot (see Fig. 2), which supplies the material. The can is opened and closed using a valve actuated by pressurized air. For control purposes, we installed a 2D line sensor (Keyenece LJ-V 7080). A central computer controls all components by using the Robot Operating System (ROS)”; Bamford, see at least pages 4, 11, the robot apparatus comprises a surface preparation head that is configured to treat surface with a surface coating medium such as paint).
Regarding claim 13, Lachmayer discloses a robotic system (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2), comprising:
a vehicle moveable across a floor in a transporting direction (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2, page 110, platform MiR 100);
a robot mounted on the vehicle (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2, page 110, “The platform is extended by a 7-axis Franka Emika manipulator with a payload of 3 kg. In the following, this mobile manipulator is referred to as ”the robot””), the robot comprising:
a tracker for tracking the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 2, 4, pages 110-111, the 2D laser-scanner for contour tracking of the workpiece);
wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2, page 110, col. 2, lines 4-29, providing a mobile robot comprising manipulator and laser scanner adding to the end-effector of the manipulator)
an end effector to interact with the workpiece according to feedback from the first (Lachmayer, see at least page 110, “Specifically, our method can correct the platform and robot position relative to a given 2D contour of the workpiece. We record the necessary data with a high-precision 2D laser scanner attached to the end-effector of the manipulator. Based on real-time 2D profile recognition, correction values for the position of the tool are determined. These position offsets are converted into velocity feedforward values and transferred to the manipulator and the mobile platform using a PI-controller”);
a control system (Lachmayer, see at least page 110, col. 2, “A central computer controls all components by using the Robot Operating System (ROS)”) configured to, when the robotic system is moving across the floor in the transporting direction such that the first is tracking a first region of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, the mobile robot is transporting along the contour of the workpiece (x-direction) and the scanner is oriented in the machining direction of the tool so that the contour can be seen in front of the tool), adjust the robot according to the feedback from the first (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 5, page 111, “adjust the feed rate by slowing down or speeding up the platform along the contour (x-direction)”) and effect a position of the end effector relative to the workpiece when interacting with the second region behind the first region in the transporting direction and during movement of the vehicle and the robot across the floor in the transporting direction (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, abstract, “From this depth data, we determine the target contour and control the manipulator to follow it. Simultaneously we vary the robot’s speed to adjust the feed rate depending on the contour’s shape, maintaining a constant material application rate”; pages 111-112, control the robot’s end effector to follow the contour of the workpiece while correcting height deviations in the previous layers based on scanning data from the sensor that is tracking the contour in front of the end effector).
Lachmayer fails to explicitly teach wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner and a second laser line scanner for tracking a first region of the workpiece and adjusting the mobile robot according to feedback from the first and second laser line scanners.
Zhou teaches a robot comprises an end effector 10 and two laser sensors 2 that are mounted on an end of the robotic arm 10 (Zhou, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0079]); the two laser sensors 2 are configured to track a surface 9 in a first region of the surface 9, i.e. the forward direction of the end effector 10 (Zhou, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0088]) and to provide tracking sensor to a controller for adjusting posture of the end effector 10 relative to the surface 9 to maintain interaction of the end effector 10 with a second region of the surface 9 trailing the first region in the moving direction (Zhou, see at least Fig. 10, par. [0091-0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Lachmayer to include, wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner and a second laser line scanner for tracking a first region of the workpiece and adjusting the mobile robot according to feedback from the first and second laser line scanners, as taught by Zhou. This modification would allow to adjusting the robot relative to the surface more accurately according to sensor data from the two laser sensors (Zhou, see at least par. [0090]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches comprising a determiner to determine a path correction of the end effector on the basis of a plurality of identifiable features of the workpiece obtained from measurements by the tracker (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, col. 1, ”From each profile, we calculate basic geometric features like height, width, or volume to estimate the contour’s deviation from a target contour. This deviation is transformed into the robot’s coordinate system and added to the velocity control loop as an offset”; Fig. 5, page 111, col. 2, “Using ∆d we adjust this pre-planned manipulator trajectory to account for lateral deviations (y-direction) from the target path”), and the control system is to adjust the robot according to the path correction (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, col. 1, “…control the robot to follow the contour while correcting height deviations in the previous layers”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claims 13 and 14 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein the determiner is configured to pass the path correction through a filter, and the control system is configured to adjust the robot according to the path correction passed through the filter (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, formulas (1), (2), (3), the height deviation and lateral deviation between the detected contour and the target contour are calculated based on a median filtered to minimize the effects of sensor noise, and the control system is configured to adjust the robot according to a correction term for the robot to adapt its path planning based on the height deviation and lateral deviation as described in col 2 of page 111).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claims 13, 14 and 17 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein the filter comprises a moving average such that the path correction used to adjust the robot is a moving average path correction (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, formulas (1), (2), (3), the height deviation and lateral deviation between the detected contour and the target contour are calculated based on a median filtered to minimize the effects of sensor noise).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein the vehicle is an automated guided vehicle (AGV) (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2, page 110, platform MiR 100).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2, page 110, “The algorithm was tested on a mobile 3D printer by layer-wise application of PU foam (see Fig. 1) … A central computer controls all components by using the Robot Operating System (ROS)”; Zhou, see at least Fig. 10, par. [0091-0093]).
Regarding claim 23, Lachmayer discloses a mobile robot for interacting with a workpiece as the mobile robot transports across the ground relative to the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 1, 2), the mobile robot comprising:
a tracker for tracking the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 2, 4, pages 110-111, the 2D laser-scanner for contour tracking of the workpiece);
wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 2, page 110, col. 2, lines 4-29, providing a mobile robot comprising manipulator and laser scanner adding to the end-effector of the manipulator)
an end effector for interacting with the workpiece based on feedback from the first (Lachmayer, see at least page 110, “Specifically, our method can correct the platform and robot position relative to a given 2D contour of the workpiece. We record the necessary data with a high-precision 2D laser scanner attached to the end-effector of the manipulator. Based on real-time 2D profile recognition, correction values for the position of the tool are determined. These position offsets are converted into velocity feedforward values and transferred to the manipulator and the mobile platform using a PI-controller”); and
a control system (Lachmayer, see at least page 110, col. 2, “A central computer controls all components by using the Robot Operating System (ROS)”) configured such that when the mobile robot is transporting in a transporting direction across the ground relative to the workpiece such that the first is tracking a first region of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, the mobile robot is transporting along the contour of the workpiece (x-direction) and the scanner is oriented in the machining direction of the tool so that the contour can be seen in front of the tool), the control system is configured to adjust the mobile robot according to the feedback from the first (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 5, page 111, “adjust the feed rate by slowing down or speeding up the platform along the contour (x-direction)”) and effect a position of the end effector when interacting the end effector with the second region of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, abstract, “From this depth data, we determine the target contour and control the manipulator to follow it. Simultaneously we vary the robot’s speed to adjust the feed rate depending on the contour’s shape, maintaining a constant material application rate”; pages 111-112, control the robot’s end effector to follow the contour of the workpiece while correcting height deviations in the previous layers based on scanning data from the sensor that is tracking the contour in front of the end effector).
Lachmayer fails to explicitly teach wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner and a second laser line scanner offset from each other and arranged at one end of a bracket for tracking a first region of the workpiece and adjusting the mobile robot according to feedback from the first and second laser line scanners.
Zhou teaches a robot comprises an end effector 10, and two laser sensors 2 that are mounted offset from each other on an end of the robotic arm 10 (Zhou, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0079]); the two laser sensors 2 are configured to track a surface 9 in a first region of the surface 9, i.e. the forward direction of the end effector 10 (Zhou, see at least Fig. 9, par. [0088]) and to provide tracking sensor to a controller for adjusting posture of the end effector 10 relative to the surface 9 to maintain interaction of the end effector 10 with a second region of the surface 9 trailing the first region in the moving direction (Zhou, see at least Fig. 10, par. [0091-0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Lachmayer to include, wherein the tracker comprises a first laser line scanner and a second laser line scanner offset from each other and arranged at one end of a bracket for tracking a first region of the workpiece and adjusting the mobile robot according to feedback from the first and second laser line scanners, as taught by Zhou. This modification would allow to adjusting the robot relative to the surface more accurately according to sensor data from the two laser sensors (Zhou, see at least par. [0090]).
Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachmayer et al. (NPL “Contour Tracking Control for Mobile Robots applicable to Large-scale Assembly and Additive Manufacturing in Construction”, hereinafter “Lachmayer”), in view of Zhou et al. (WO2022068408A1, hereinafter “Zhou”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hargadon (US 20190255551 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou further teaches wherein the end effector comprises a working envelope (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, page 110, a working envelope of the end effector of the mobile robot is moveable relative to the contour of the workpiece in the moving direction of the mobile robot since the end effector position is corrected relative the contour of the mobile robot as the mobile robot is moving).
Hargadon teaches a mobile robot comprises an end effector that has an ability to coat a specific area in front of the mobile robot when the mobile robot is stationary (Hargadon, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0168]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou to include, wherein the end effector comprises a working envelope that is restricted relative to the workpiece when the mobile robot is stationary, as taught by Hargadon. This modification would allow to maintain stability of the mobile robot.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lachmayer, Zhou, and Hargadon teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2. The combination of Lachmayer, Zhou, and Hargadon further teaches wherein the adjusting comprises adjusting the mobile robot to maintain interaction between the end effector and the workpiece to an extent of the workpiece that exceeds a diameter of the working envelope (Hargadon, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0032], “In an embodiment the robotic arm 120 may have one segment only, or two or more segments, and may have six axes of movement, enabling the arm to be positioned so that the floating end 120.2 can be positioned arbitrarily in relation to the Platform 105, within the limits of the region of extension of the arm 120 […] In an embodiment, the arm 120 is configured and arranged with such subdivisions, joints, actuator, motors, pulleys, pistons, and/or other electromechanical units as necessary to enable versatile up/down, side-to-side, and backwards and forward movement in space, over broad angles, such that the second end 120.2 of arm 120 can navigate a circular area or other defined geometric area along a structural surface”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claims 13 and 14 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou fails to explicitly teach wherein the determiner is separate from the robot such that the path correction is not determined by the robot but is receivable by the robot from the determiner.
Hargadon teaches the mobile robot is configured to receive a navigation function, i.e. platform movement and axis arm movement, from an open, networked artificial intelligence platform via a network (Hargadon, see at least par. [0100, 0126-0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou to include, wherein the determiner is separate from the robot such that the path correction is not determined by the robot but is receivable by the robot from the determiner, as taught by Hargadon. This modification would allow to share data and rules that are learned from experience applying coatings.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claims 13 and 14 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou fails to explicitly teach wherein, the determiner is configured to determine the path correction according to historical measurements by the tracker associated with a measurement region of the workpiece.
Hargadon teaches to determine a plan to navigate and interact the mobile robot comprises the end effector with a surface of a workpiece, e.g. painting a surface of an object, based on stored digital representations of known features and obstacles (which representations may be or include sensor data stored in a library) to identify or recognize in real-time the real-life surfaces, objects, features, obstacles and environments that the sensors are currently detecting (Hargadon, see at least par. [0112, 0200]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou to include, wherein, the determiner is configured to determine the path correction according to historical measurements by the tracker associated with a measurement region of the workpiece, as taught by Hargadon. This modification would allow to share data and rules that are learned from experience applying coatings.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachmayer et al. (NPL “Contour Tracking Control for Mobile Robots applicable to Large-scale Assembly and Additive Manufacturing in Construction”, hereinafter “Lachmayer”), in view of Zhou et al. (WO2022068408A1, hereinafter “Zhou”) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Telleria et al. (US 20230390942 A1, hereinafter “Telleria”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lachmayer and Zhou teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. The combination of Lachmayer and Zhou fails to teach comprising a compliance arrangement to resist movement of the end effector when interacting with the workpiece, wherein the control system is configured to adjust the mobile robot and effect the position of the end effector relative to the workpiece according to an amount of resistance by the compliance arrangement.
Telleria teaches a mobile robot for interacting with a surface as the mobile robot transports across the ground relative to the surface (Telleria, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0018-0019, 0028-0029]); the mobile robot comprises a robotic arm includes an end effector, the end effector comprises a surface evaluation end effector 160E being a portion of a coating end effector 160M to perform respective tasks or portions of tasks related to surface finishing and/or evaluation at the same time with the surface evaluation end effector 160E leading the coating end effector 160M (Telleria, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0044, 0051]); the surface evaluation end effector 160E comprises a compliant stage that is instrumented with sensors that capture when contact is made with the target surface and how much the stage moved or deflected during contact, and the control system 322 is configured to control position of the end effect based on sensor data of the compliant stage (Telleria, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0054-0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lachmayer to include, comprising a compliance arrangement to resist movement of the end effector when interacting with the workpiece, wherein the control system is configured to adjust the mobile robot and effect the position of the end effector relative to the workpiece according to an amount of resistance by the compliance arrangement, as taught by Telleria. This modification would allow to protect the target surface, adjacent surfaces, workers, and the system itself from damaging (Telleria, see at least par. [0054]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachmayer et al. (NPL “Contour Tracking Control for Mobile Robots applicable to Large-scale Assembly and Additive Manufacturing in Construction”, hereinafter “Lachmayer”), and further in view of Telleria et al. (US 20230390942 A1, hereinafter “Telleria”).
Regarding claim 24, Lachmayer teaches a mobile robot for interacting with a workpiece as the mobile robot transports across the ground relative to the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 1, 2), the mobile robot comprising:
a tracker for tracking the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 2, 4, pages 110-111, the 2D laser-scanner for contour tracking of the workpiece);
an end effector for interacting with the workpiece based on feedback from the tracker (Lachmayer, see at least page 110, “Specifically, our method can correct the platform and robot position relative to a given 2D contour of the workpiece. We record the necessary data with a high-precision 2D laser scanner attached to the end-effector of the manipulator. Based on real-time 2D profile recognition, correction values for the position of the tool are determined. These position offsets are converted into velocity feedforward values and transferred to the manipulator and the mobile platform using a PI-controller”);
a control system (Lachmayer, see at least page 110, col. 2, “A central computer controls all components by using the Robot Operating System (ROS)”) configured such that when the mobile robot is transporting in a transporting direction across the ground relative to the workpiece such that the tracker is tracking a first region of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 4, page 111, the mobile robot is transporting along the contour of the workpiece (x-direction) and the scanner is oriented in the machining direction of the tool so that the contour can be seen in front of the tool), the control system causes the mobile robot to adjust according to the feedback from the tracker (Lachmayer, see at least Fig. 5, page 111, “adjust the feed rate by slowing down or speeding up the platform along the contour (x-direction)”) and effect a position of the end effector when interacting the end effector with the second region of the workpiece (Lachmayer, see at least Figs. 4, 5, abstract, “From this depth data, we determine the target contour and control the manipulator to follow it. Simultaneously we vary the robot’s speed to adjust the feed rate depending on the contour’s shape, maintaining a constant material application rate”; pages 111-112, control the robot’s end effector to follow the contour of the workpiece while correcting height deviations in the previous layers based on scanning data from the sensor that is tracking the contour in front of the end effector).
Lachmayer fails to explicitly teach a compliance arrangement to resist movement of the end effector when interacting with the workpiece.
Telleria teaches a mobile robot for interacting with a surface as the mobile robot transports across the ground relative to the surface (Telleria, see at least Fig. 1, par. [0018-0019, 0028-0029]); the mobile robot comprises a robotic arm includes an end effector, the end effector comprises a surface evaluation end effector 160E being a portion of a coating end effector 160M to perform respective tasks or portions of tasks related to surface finishing and/or evaluation at the same time with the surface evaluation end effector 160E leading the coating end effector 160M (Telleria, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0044, 0051]); the surface evaluation end effector 160E comprises a compliant stage that is instrumented with sensors that capture when contact is made with the target surface and how much the stage moved or deflected during contact, and the control system 322 is configured to control position of the end effect based on sensor data of the compliant stage (Telleria, see at least Fig. 4, par. [0054-0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Lachmayer to include, a compliance arrangement to resist movement of the end effector when interacting with the workpiece, as taught by Telleria. This modification would allow to protect the target surface, adjacent surfaces, workers, and the system itself from damaging (Telleria, see at least par. [0054]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bamford et al. (WO2021028673A1) discloses a sensor system for a robotic apparatus for industrial fabric maintenance of a work object in a work location. The sensor system comprises a first optical system for collecting a first data set relating to a work location and/or work object, a second optical system for collecting a second data set relating to a work location and/or work object and at least one processing module for processing the first and second data sets. The sensor system is operable to process the first data set and the second data set to locate the robotic apparatus in relation to the work location and/or work object.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/TRANG DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights