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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aldridge (US 20200368904 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Aldridge
PNG
media_image2.png
722
932
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A of Aldridge
Regarding claim 1, Aldridge teaches a method for programming equipment used for or related to a manufacturing process, comprising:
(a) installing equipment (120) in a manufacturing environment (100);
(b) positioning a plurality of sensors (928, 932) within the manufacturing environment (100) in proximity to the equipment (120), wherein the plurality of sensors (928, 932) are configured to gather data from the manufacturing environment (100, Fig. 1);
(c) connecting at least one processor (902) to the plurality of sensors (928, 932), wherein the at least one processor includes software for receiving data from the plurality of sensors and the equipment ([0124-0127]);
(d) connecting at least one manual controller (220) to the processor (902), wherein the at least one manual controller (220) receives motion input from a user of the manual controller ([0059] the user is capable of moving the controller device 220 in space, to cause a movement of the robotic device 202),
wherein the software (924) on the processor (902) mathematically transforms the motion input into corresponding motion commands that are sent to the equipment by the processor ([0063] the robotic welding system may map the positions and orientations of the controller device 220 into robot coordinates, through direct Cartesian coordinate representation or abstracted axis motion mapping), wherein the equipment (202),
which is physically remote from the at least one controller (220, Fig. 2A), executes the motion commands in real-time during the manufacturing process ([0059] the user is capable of moving the controller device 220 in space, to cause a movement of the robotic device 202 end effectors from one point in space to another); and
(e) using the software to save a teachpoint in a program file ([0114] a starting point and an ending point associated with a welding path. The welding path is saved into the at least one memory).
Regarding claim 10, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein equipment includes welding equipment, measurement equipment, inspection equipment, remote assembly equipment, or combinations thereof ([0040] robotic welding system).
Regarding claim 11, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the at least one manual controller is a hand-held stylus, a computer mouse, or a joystick ([0058] controller device 220, joystick 203).
Regarding claim 12, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 1,
further comprising providing a computer network across which the processor communicates with the equipment ([0120] network environments).
Regarding claim 13, Aldridge teaches A method for remotely programming equipment used for or related to a manufacturing process, comprising:
(a) installing equipment (120) in a manufacturing environment (100);
(b) positioning a plurality of sensors (928, 932) within the manufacturing environment (100) in proximity to the equipment (120), wherein the plurality of sensors (928, 932) are configured to gather data from the manufacturing environment (100, Fig. 1);
(c) connecting at least one processor (902) to the plurality of sensors (928, 932), wherein the at least one processor includes software for receiving data from the plurality of sensors and the equipment ([0124-0127] ;
(d) connecting at least one manual controller (220) to the processor (902), wherein the at least one manual controller (220) receives motion input from a user of the manual controller ([0059] the user is capable of moving the controller device 220 in space, to cause a movement of the robotic device 202),wherein the software (924) on the processor (902) mathematically transforms the motion input into corresponding motion commands that are sent to the equipment by the processor ([0063] the robotic welding system may map the positions and orientations of the controller device 220 into robot coordinates, through direct Cartesian coordinate representation or abstracted axis motion mapping), wherein the equipment (202), which is physically remote from the at least one controller (220, Fig. 2A, B), executes the motion commands in real-time during the manufacturing process ([0059] the user is capable of moving the controller device 220 in space, to cause a movement of the robotic device 202 end effectors from one point in space to another); and
(e) saving a teachpoint in a program file ([0114] a starting point and an ending point associated with a welding path. The welding path is saved into the at least one memory) wherein the software:
(i) determines whether the equipment (202) has moved a predetermined minimum distance from a previously saved teachpoint location ([0116] moving the end effector to a second location after the starting position has been determined) and
(ii) adds the teachpoint to the program file if the equipment moved the predetermined minimum distance from the previously saved teachpoint location ([0116] ending point saved).
Regarding claim 18, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 13,
wherein equipment includes welding equipment, measurement equipment, inspection equipment, remote assembly equipment, or combinations thereof ([0040] robotic welding system).
Regarding claim 19, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 13,
wherein the at least one manual controller is a hand-held stylus, a computer mouse, or a joystick ([0058] controller device 220, joystick 203).
Regarding claim 20, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 13,
further comprising providing a computer network across which the processor communicates with the equipment ([0120] network environments).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge (US 20200368904) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kegasa (US20210046643A1).
Regarding claim 2, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising (a) determining whether the equipment (202) has moved a predetermined minimum distance from a previously saved teachpoint location ([0116] moving the end effector to a second location after the starting position has been determined);
(b) adding a first new teachpoint to the program file if the equipment moved the predetermined minimum distance from the previously saved teachpoint location ([0116] ending point saved); but is silent on determining whether a predetermined minimum amount of time has passed since a previously saved teachpoint time and adding a second new teachpoint to the program file if the predetermined minimum amount of time varied from the previously saved teachpoint time.
Kegasa teaches (c) determining whether a predetermined minimum amount of time has passed since a previously saved teachpoint time (S10, [0080] period of time); and
(d) adding a second new teachpoint to the program file if the predetermined minimum amount of time varied from the previously saved teachpoint time (S11, [0080] set teach point).
Aldridge and Kegasa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of programming. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Kegasa to determine if a time has passed and adding a new teachpoint to be able to record the accurate and desired teachpoint that which is not incorrectly recorded based on external interference (Kegasa [0015]).
Regarding claim 14, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 13, but is silent on determining whether a predetermined minimum amount of time has passed since a previously saved teachpoint time and adding a second new teachpoint to the program file if the predetermined minimum amount of time varied from the previously saved teachpoint time.
Kegasa teaches (a) determining whether a predetermined minimum amount of time has passed since a previously saved teachpoint time (S10, [0080] period of time); and
(b) adding a second new teachpoint to the program file if the predetermined minimum amount of time varied from the previously saved teachpoint time (S11, [0080] set teach point).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Kegasa to determine if a time has passed and adding a new teachpoint to be able to record the accurate and desired teachpoint that which is not incorrectly recorded based on external interference (Kegasa [0015]).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge (US 20200368904) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Hoshiyama (US12350825B2).
Regarding claim 3, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising displaying a real-time video of the manufacturing environment to the user on a human machine interface screen during the manufacturing process, wherein the user can add the teachpoint to the program file through the human machine interface screen.
PNG
media_image3.png
778
576
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Hoshiyama
Hoshiyama teaches further comprising displaying a real-time video of the manufacturing environment to the user on a human machine interface screen (5) during the manufacturing process (Fig. 6), wherein the user can add the teachpoint to the program file through the human machine interface screen (Col. 5 lines 5-40 the teaching point selected by the user, or the position desired by the user, and displays the searched teaching point on the generation screen 12; Press a “Point” button, which is an instruction to add the teaching point ).
Aldridge and Hoshiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of programming. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Hoshiyama to display a real time video where a user can add teachpoints through a human machine interface so that the efficiency of the teaching operation for the robot can be improved by using previous and current teaching points (Hoshiyama Col. 3 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 13, but is silent on further comprising displaying a real-time video of the manufacturing environment to the user on a human machine interface screen during the manufacturing process, wherein the user can add the teachpoint to the program file through the human machine interface screen.
Hoshiyama teaches further comprising displaying a real-time video of the manufacturing environment to the user on a human machine interface screen (5) during the manufacturing process (Fig. 6), wherein the user can add the teachpoint to the program file through the human machine interface screen (Col. 5 lines 5-40 the teaching point selected by the user, or the position desired by the user, and displays the searched teaching point on the generation screen 12; Press a “Point” button, which is an instruction to add the teaching point ).
Aldridge and Hoshiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of programming. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Hoshiyama to display a real time video where a user can add teachpoints through a human machine interface so that the efficiency of the teaching operation for the robot can be improved by using previous and current teaching points (Hoshiyama Col. 3 lines 1-5).
Claims 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge (US 20200368904) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kumar (US20210096568).
Regarding claim 4, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising using artificial intelligence to determine if a new teachpoint should be saved to the program file.
Kumar teaches further comprising using artificial intelligence to determine if a new teachpoint should be saved to the program file ([0025] determine waypoints, taken to be the equivalent of a teachpoint, by artificial intelligence).
Aldridge and Kumar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of programming. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Kumar to use artificial intelligence in order to accurately and dynamically modify trajectories and positions (Kumar [0028]).
Regarding claim 5, Aldridge and Kumar teach the method of claim 4, but Aldridge is silent on wherein the artificial intelligence uses project trajectory, direction, speed, distance, or combinations thereof to determine if the new teachpoint should be saved to the program file.
Kumar teaches wherein the artificial intelligence uses project trajectory, direction, speed, distance, or combinations thereof to determine if the new teachpoint should be saved to the program file ([0025] determine waypoints, taken to be the equivalent of a teachpoint, by artificial intelligence; trajectory).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Kumar to use artificial intelligence that uses project trajectory in order to accurately and dynamically modify trajectories and positions (Kumar [0028]).
Regarding claim 16, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 13, but is silent on further comprising using artificial intelligence to determine if a new teachpoint should be saved to the program file.
Kumar teaches further comprising using artificial intelligence to determine if a new teachpoint should be saved to the program file ([0025] determine waypoints, taken to be the equivalent of a teachpoint, by artificial intelligence).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Kumar to use artificial intelligence in order to accurately and dynamically modify trajectories and positions (Kumar [0028]).
Regarding claim 17, Aldridge and Kumar teach the method of claim 16, but Aldridge is silent on wherein the artificial intelligence uses project trajectory, direction, speed, distance, or combinations thereof to determine if the new teachpoint should be saved to the program file.
Kumar teaches wherein the artificial intelligence uses project trajectory, direction, speed, distance, or combinations thereof to determine if the new teachpoint should be saved to the program file ([0025] determine waypoints, taken to be the equivalent of a teachpoint, by artificial intelligence; trajectory).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Kumar to use artificial intelligence that uses project trajectory in order to accurately and dynamically modify trajectories and positions (Kumar [0028]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge (US 20200368904) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beeson (US 20160207134 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
(a) using at least one of the sensors in the plurality of sensors to measure a distance between an end effector on the equipment and a part surface, wherein the at least one of the plurality of sensors is a displacement data sensor ([0076] a sensor that can sense and capture the position and orientation of the control device relative to a coordinate system; , the offset distance d may be measured from a point on the end effector such that the end effector traverses through space while attached to the robot 302 and keeping a distance d from a surface); but is silent on disabling the user's control of the inspection equipment if the distances varies from a predetermined operating distance range.
Beeson teaches disabling the user's control of the inspection equipment if the distances varies from a predetermined operating distance range ([0052] The processing circuitry may be operable to, upon detecting that the welding parameter (e.g., travel speed, work angle, travel angle, aim, and contact tip-to-work distance) is outside of a determined tolerance, vary the welding power source control signal adjust setting of the welding equipment in an attempt to compensate for the out-of-tolerance parameter, alert an operator as to the out-of-tolerance parameter, and/or disable power to the torch to prevent a bad weld).
Aldridge and Beeson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of programming. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Beeson to disable the user's control if a distance is out of range in order to prevent a bad weld (Beeson [0052]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge (US 20200368904) and Beeson (US 20160207134 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lindo (US20250342778).
Regarding claim 7, Aldridge and Beeson teach the method of claim 6, and Aldridge teaches reading the measured distance (d) between the end effector and the part surface ([0076] end effector traverses through space while attached to the robot 302 and keeping a distance d from a surface), but is silent on silent on providing a haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the data from the plurality of sensors and the equipment; and updating the haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the measured distance from the displacement data sensor.
Lindo teaches (b) providing a haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the data from the plurality of sensors and the equipment ([0047]); and
(c) updating the haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the measured distance from the displacement data sensor ([0047] In one embodiment, the e-learning platform is used for distance learning and hands-on training so the trainee can feel, preferably in real-time, the haptic feedback and, thus, the spatial positioning correction performed by the trainer while the trainee performs physical operations using an end effector, irrespective of the physical distance between the trainer and the trainee).
Aldridge, Beeson, and Lindo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of programming. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge and Beeson to incorporate the teachings of Lindo to have haptic feedback based on a distance so that a trainee may feel in real time correction of the weld (Lindo [0047]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge (US 20200368904) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Batlzer (US 10987762).
Regarding claim 8, Aldridge teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on using at least one of the sensors in the plurality of sensors to measure a pressure applied between an end effector on the equipment and a part surface, and disabling the user's control of the equipment if the pressure varies from a predetermined operating pressure range.
Batzler teaches (a) using at least one of the sensors in the plurality of sensors to measure a pressure applied between an end effector on the equipment and a part surface (Col. 6 lines 35- 40 pressure sensor;); and
(b) disabling the user's control of the equipment if the pressure varies from a predetermined operating pressure range (Col. 11 lines 5-55; claim 11 disabling at least some portion or operation of the detection component when the command is a disable command).
Aldridge and Batzler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of programming. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge to incorporate the teachings of Batzler to use pressure sensors and disable operation based on the pressure sensor in order to improve power consumption without affecting the ability to resume operation (Batzler Col. 11 lines 25-50).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldridge (US 20200368904) and Batlzer (US 10987762) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Schaible (US 8332072).
Regarding claim 9, Aldridge and Batlzer teach the method of claim 8, but are silent on further comprising: reading the measured pressure applied between the end effector and the part surface, providing a haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the data from the plurality of sensors and the equipment, and updating the haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the measured pressure.
Schiable teaches (a) reading the measured pressure applied between the end effector and the part surface (Col. 3 lines 20-35 end effectors are also fitted with a plurality of force transducers which can sense forces acting on them);
(b) providing a haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the data from the plurality of sensors and the equipment (Col. 3 lines 20-35 the measured forces are converted into signals which are sent to the robotic hand controller 100); and
(c) updating the haptic feedback response to the manual controller based on the measured pressure (Col. 3 lines 20-40 The measured forces are converted into signals which are sent to the robotic hand controller 100 where they are interpreted by a force feedback device i.e. the haptic feedback interface).
Aldridge, Batzler, and Schaible are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of programming. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Aldridge and Batzler to incorporate the teachings of Schaible to have haptic feedback based on a sensed pressure in order to give feedback to the user so that the user gets an accurate representation of the force felt during the procedure (Schaible Col. 2 lines 30-50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/4/2026
Prosecution Insights