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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 10 and 12 - 21 are pending in the application.
Claims 1, 13, and 16 are independent.
Claim 11 is cancelled.
DETAILED ACTION
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 and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20210101183), herein “Sakai,” in view of Hutchinson (US PG Pub. No. 20190176403), herein “Hutchinson” in view of Konrath et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20240017340), herein “Konrath.”
Regarding claim 1,
Sakai teaches a method of performing a finishing operation on a surface of a component, the method comprising: (Par. 0004: “A surface finishing apparatus according to an aspect of the present disclosure includes: an arm; a tool attached to a distal end of the arm; a force sensor that detects a force applied to the tool; a visual sensor that acquires an image of a plane surface of a metal member, the plane surface being formed by processing; a storage device that stores data indicating a target state of the plane surface; and a controller that performs removing position determination process which determines, by using at least unfinished-surface image data obtained by the visual sensor and the data indicating the target state, a plurality of removing positions that are on the plane surface of the member and that are separated from each other, and arm control process which controls the arm to sequentially perform, by means of the tool, surface removal at the plurality of determined removing positions, wherein a surface inspection agent is applied to the plane surface whose image is to be acquired by the visual sensor, a metal flat surface is rubbed against the plane surface, and thereby the surface inspection agent is distributed over the plane surface in accordance with the state of the plane surface, and the controller controls, by using a detection result of the force sensor, the force applied to the tool when performing the surface removal.”)
(a) generating an image of the surface of the component; (Par. 0031: “…the controller 20 causes the visual sensor 60 to acquire an image of the entire plane surface S of the plate-like member P while moving the visual sensor 60. In this case, the visual sensor 60 can be moved by means of a moving means of the arm 10 or the like of the robot 2.” Par. 0035 and 0036.)
(c) selecting, by a controller, one of a plurality of finishing tools to perform the finishing operation on the target area; (Par. 0040: “Next, the controller 20 selects the specific tool 50 to be used on the basis of the surface removal program 23c (step S1-4). The surface finishing apparatus 1 includes a tool storage unit 80, such as a tool stand, a tool cartridge, or the like, and a plurality of tools 50 are stored in the tool storage unit 80. The plurality of tools 50 differ from each other in terms of the shapes, the materials, and so forth of the distal-end portions 53 thereof. When determining the type of the tool 50 in step S1-4, the controller 20 uses, for example, one of the plurality of finished-surface image data, the first target, the second target, and the third target or a combination thereof, as well as the distribution state of the surface inspection agent obtained in step S1-2 on the basis of the unfinished-surface image data.” Par. 0069: “In this embodiment, the controller 20 selects the tool 50 to be attached to the distal end of the arm 10 by using at least the unfinished-surface image data and the data indicating the target states.”)
(d) operating, by a robot, a selected one of the plurality of finishing tools to perform the finishing operation; (Par. 0019, last sentence: “In this embodiment, the robot 2 performs the surface removal by pressing the distal-end portion 53 against the plane surface S of the plate-like member P.” Par. 0043: “Next, the controller 20 makes the tool 50 move, by a distance of 2 cm or less, in the direction in which the distal end thereof is pointed while controlling the force applied to the tool 50 by using the detection results of the force sensor 30 on the basis of the surface removal program 23c (step S1-7). In step S1-7, the controller 20 may control the moving speed at which the tool 50 is moved. For example, the controller 20 controls the moving speed of the tool 50 so as to fall within a prescribed speed range.” See also Par. 0040 - 0042.)
(e) measuring a surface roughness (flatness) of the target area; (Par. 0045: “Note that the controller 20 can evaluate, by using the observation data obtained in step S1-10, the flatness of the plane surface S that has been subjected to the surface removal.” See also paragraphs 0056 and 0063 (roughness).)
and (f) repeating steps (a) to (e) until the surface roughness of the target area satisfies a predetermined value. (Par. 0044: “The controller 20 repeats steps S1-6 and S1-7 by a number of times in accordance with the number of removing positions RP (step S1-8), and, subsequently, the controller 20 transmits the image acquisition instruction to the visual sensor 60 on the basis of the inputs to the input device 24 or the like (step S1-9). The inspection preparation has been applied to the plane surface S before the input is made to the input device 24.” Par. 0045: “In addition, the controller 20 applies, as needed, image processing to the acquired image data (observation data) obtained in step S1-9, and detects the distribution state of the surface inspection agent in the processed image (step S1-10). The image indicating the distribution state, obtained in step S1-10, is also an example of the observation data. Note that the image indicating the distribution state, obtained in step S1-10, is employed as the finished-surface image data in the next surface removal and thereafter. The processing performed by the controller 20 in step S1-10 is the same as the processing in step S1-2. Note that the controller 20 can evaluate, by using the observation data obtained in step S1-10, the flatness of the plane surface S that has been subjected to the surface removal.”)
Even though Sakai teaches in paragraph 0035 that there are a plurality of finished-surface image data stored in the controller (item 20), and in paragraphs 0049 and 0050 uses image data and target states to determine the state of finishing; Sakai does not teach comparing the image surface to a CAD model. However, Hutchinson teaches (b) comparing the image of the surface of the component with a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) model of the surface of the component to identify a target area to be finished; (Par. 0054: “A vision system, which may include a camera 115, may be included to detect the rate at which support material 13 is removed or surface finishing of the build material 16 is occurring. The vision system may also detect the level of smoothness of surface finishing at any given point in time. The image that is read in by the vision system may also be compared to a CAD file of the AM-Part 19 including support material 13 to optimize the process as it occurs. This comparison may be made by the computer 40B associated with the HMI 40 or a separate computer for detecting when the desired amount of support material 13 has been removed from the AM-Part 19 and/or when a specific surface finish of the build material 16 has been achieved.” Par. 0063: “These parameters are modified, and may be selected to increase the efficiency of a support removal and surface finishing process, such as decreasing cycle time or decreasing the desired outer surface roughness. In an embodiment of the invention, some or all of the parameters may be determined automatically using, for example, a vision system that may identify the support material 13, the build material 16, the geometry of the AM-Part 19, their properties including surface roughness, etc. The computer 40B then may take action to adjust the operating parameters so that the AM-Part is processed toward a desired outcome. The vision system may use the CAD model file and other metadata for the AM-Part 19 to assist in making this assessment.” Par. 0006 (summary of the invention).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the steps of acquiring an image of the surface of a plane, using a controller to select a finishing tool depending on the unfinished-surface image state, wherein a robot uses a tool to remove surface material and repeat the finishing steps (Par. 0044) as in Sakai with a system of surface finishing that uses a vision system and compares image data with a CAD file that is a CAD model file (Par. 0063, last sentence) as in Hutchinson in order to optimize the process and determine whether a desired amount of material has been moved from the surface of the part. (Par. 0054)
Hutchinson implicitly teaches and Konrath explicitly teaches the amended portion of the robot being mounted on an autonomous navigation platform, the autonomous navigation platform being movable to a plurality of locations around the component; (Par. 0013: “…the at least one robot is mounted on a first mobile platform comprising a riser; wherein the at least one robot moves freely horizontally and vertically.” Par. 0015: “…the mobile platform is a manually guided vehicle or an autonomously guided vehicle.” Par. 0082: “The robots can be moved to specific locations where additional printing, machining, polishing, part removal, and/or any other processes may be needed.” Par. 0143. See figure 12B that depicts the mobile platform on wheels and can be autonomous as taught in Konrath.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the steps of acquiring an image of the surface of a plane, using a controller to select a finishing tool depending on the unfinished-surface image state, wherein a robot uses a tool to remove surface material and repeat the finishing steps (Par. 0044) as in Sakai with a system of surface finishing that uses a vision system and compares image data with a CAD file that is a CAD model file (Par. 0063, last sentence) as in Hutchinson with a mobile autonomous platform where a robot is mounted and is movable about a printed part (item 603 and 1201) as in Konrath in order to have mobile platforms autonomously controlled where the concurrent manufacturing operations may be performed such as material deposition, tool changes, detailed machining operations, and polishing (Par. 0072 and 0082)
Regarding claim 2,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 2 depends. Sakai also teaches that the surface roughness of the target area is measured after the finishing operation by the selected one of the plurality of finishing tools is performed. (Par. 0063: “Note that the observation data may be data obtained by measuring the surface shapes of the plane surfaces S by means of a surface roughness measurement or the like.”)
Regarding claim 3,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 3 depends. Sakai also teaches that the finishing operation by the selected one of the tools is performed based on operating parameters pre-stored in a memory of the controller and associated with the selected one of the plurality of finishing tools. (Par. 0040: “…the controller 20 selects the specific tool 50 to be used on the basis of the surface removal program 23c (step S1-4). The surface finishing apparatus 1 includes a tool storage unit 80, such as a tool stand, a tool cartridge, or the like, and a plurality of tools 50 are stored in the tool storage unit 80. The plurality of tools 50 differ from each other in terms of the shapes, the materials, and so forth of the distal-end portions 53 thereof.” Par. 0056, 0069, and 0070. See also claim 7. Examiner’s Note Konrath also teaches multiple platforms and multiple robots. See Par. 0082: “Although two print robots are illustrated in FIG. 2C, as can be appreciated, a variety of number of print robots on fixed rails and a variety of number of print robots on mobile platforms can be incorporated in horizontal WAAM systems as appropriate to the requirements of specific applications in accordance with various embodiments of the invention.” See also Par. 0083 – “polishing” and “…a different number of print robots on mobile platforms can be incorporated in horizontal WAAM systems.”)
Regarding claim 4,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 4 depends. Sakai also teaches measuring a contact pressure between the selected one of the finishing tools and the surface of the component and adjusting the operating parameters when the contact pressure exceeds a threshold. (Par. 0052: “Note that the controller 20 can also operate in accordance with the learning program 23e and perform, by using the unfinished-surface image data and the observation data, learning for optimizing the force applied to the tool when performing the surface removal. In the observation data, there are cases in which large quantities of the surface inspection agent have accumulated in end portions of the surface removal marks RM. Large differences in level formed in said end portions act as one cause of large quantities of the surface inspection agent accumulating in the end portions of the surface removal marks RM in this way. The differences in level relate to the amount to be shaved off in the surface removal.” Par. 0023: “The force sensor 30 detects a Z-axis-direction force, an X-axis-direction force, and a Y-axis-direction force that act on the tool 50. In addition, the force sensor 30 also detects a torque about the Z-axis, a torque about the X-axis, and a torque about the Y-axis that act on the tool 50. In this embodiment, a 6-axis sensor is employed as the force sensor 30; however, it is also possible to employ a 3-axis force sensor, a 2-axis force sensor, a 1-axis force sensor, or the like.” Par. 0059: “In addition, by using the detection results of the force sensor 30, the controller 20 controls the force applied to the tool 50 when performing the surface removal.” See also Par. 0004, 0014, 0019, 0042, 0043, 0066, and claim 1. Examiner’s Note – by having a detailed force sensor, especially one having a multi-axis force sensor, and the controller controlling the force applied to the tool to the surface, the threshold amount would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.)
Regarding claim 16, it is directed to a system to implement the method of steps of claim 1. Sakai, Hutchinson, and Konrath teach the elements of the claim 1. Therefore, Sakai, Hutchinson, and Konrath teach the elements of the claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, it is dependent on claim 16 and is directed to a system of a controller with memory that stores operating parameters. Sakai, Hutchinson, and Konrath teach the elements of the claim 16. Sakai also teaches a controller that includes a memory for a program with operating parameters in paragraph 0024. Paragraphs 0026 teach that the program storages many parameters such as orientations, removing positions, and other paragraphs such as paragraphs 0040, 0056 and others teach a program that uses the proper tool based on surface states. Therefore, Sakai, Hutchinson, and Konrath teach the elements of the claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, it is dependent on claim 17 and is directed to a system that selects the proper tool. Sakai, Hutchinson, and Konrath teach the elements of the claim 17. Sakai also teaches select the proper tool bases on parameters such as image data and tool parameters and surface state. See paragraph 0040, 0041, 0069, 0070, and claim 7. See also figure 1 showing different tools that can be selected. Therefore, Sakai, Hutchinson, and Konrath teach the elements of the claim 18.
Regarding claim 21,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 21 depends. Konrath also teaches the robot includes a tooling system, the tooling system including the plurality of finishing tools and being integrated with the robot and movable with the robot by the autonomous navigation system. (Konrath also teaches multiple platforms and multiple robots. See Par. 0082: “Although two print robots are illustrated in FIG. 2C, as can be appreciated, a variety of number of print robots on fixed rails and a variety of number of print robots on mobile platforms can be incorporated in horizontal WAAM systems as appropriate to the requirements of specific applications in accordance with various embodiments of the invention.” See also Par. 0083 – “polishing” and “…a different number of print robots on mobile platforms can be incorporated in horizontal WAAM systems.”)
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Hutchinson in further view of Konrath in further view of Azuma (US PG Pub. No. 20240261975), herein “Azuma.”
Regarding claim 5,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 5 depends. They do not teach contact pressure. However, Azuma teaches monitoring the finishing operation by measuring a contact pressure between the selected one of the plurality of tools and the component and/or a current draw of the selected one of the finishing tools. (Par. 0037: “The robot 1 has a force sensor. In this example, the robot 1 further has, as the force sensor, a contact force sensor 13 that detects reactive force (hereinafter referred to as “contact force”) received from the object W. The contact force sensor 13 is disposed between the robot arm 12 and the end effector 11 (specifically at a coupled portion between the robot arm 12 and the end effector 11). The contact force sensor 13 detects the contact force received from the object W by the end effector 11. The contact force sensor 13 detects force in the three axis directions orthogonal to each other and moment about these three axes.” Par. 0038: “Note that the force sensor is not limited to the contact force sensor 13. For example, the contact force sensor 13 may detect force only in uniaxial, biaxial, or triaxial directions. Alternatively, the force sensor may be, for example, a current sensor that detects the current of the servo motor 15 of the robot arm 12 or a torque sensor that detects the torque of the servo motor 15.” Par. 0027: “The robot 1 is, for example, an industrial robot. The processing by the robot 1 is removal processing. The removal processing by the robot 1 is, for example, grinding. Note that the removal processing may be cutting or polishing.” See also Par. 0006.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the steps of acquiring an image of the surface of a plane, using a controller to select a finishing tool depending on the unfinished-surface image state, wherein a robot uses a tool to remove surface material and repeat the finishing steps (Par. 0044) as in Sakai with a system of surface finishing that uses a vision system and compares image data with a CAD file that is a CAD model file (Par. 0063, last sentence) as in Hutchinson with a mobile autonomous platform where a robot is mounted and is movable about a printed part (item 603 and 1201) as in Konrath with using a controller that controls a robot for polishing and sensing a contact pressure (and current of the servo motor) between the tool and the object W as in Azuma in order to for the controller to receive the contact force information and be able to automatically control movement of the operator. (Par. 0055)
Regarding claim 6,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 6 depends. They do not teach scanning the object. However, Azuma teaches scanning the surface of the component and generating the image of the surface of the component based on scanned data. (Par. 0040: “The three-dimensional scanner 82 is attached to the robot arm 12. Specifically, the three-dimensional scanner 82 is attached to the link 12a of the robot arm 12 closest to the tip end thereof. The three-dimensional scanner 82 acquires the point cloud data on the object W as the three-dimensional information. That is, the three-dimensional scanner 82 outputs the three-dimensional coordinates of many points of a point cloud indicating the surface of the object W. The point cloud data of the three-dimensional scanner 82 is input to the controller 3 from the robot controller 14.” Par. 0086)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Hutchinson in further view of Konrath in further view of Regan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20220245293), herein “Regan.”
Regarding claim 7,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 7 depends. They do not teach scanning a surface and creating a map. However, Regan teaches comprising scanning the surface of the component and generating a surface finish map in real time during the finishing operation. (Par. 0071: “The tool path may include instructions for a robotic element to position a tool proximate various surface portions of the lasted upper, such as a bottom surface and portions of a side wall portion, in an exemplary aspect. In step 1140 the surface may be treated following the tool path. For example, step 1140 may comprise buffing the surface, spraying an adhesive onto the surface using a nozzle, etc.” Par. 0087: “While method 1500 depicts a specific sequence of steps, it is contemplated that one or more steps may be rearranged while still effectively accomplishing a generated tool path for a subsequent processing of the lasted upper. For example, it is contemplated that the order in which the bite line data is captured (step 1502), generation of the digital bite line (step 1504), capture of a three-dimensional surface scan (step 1506), and the generation of a three-dimensional surface map (step 1508) may be performed in any order and may be performed in parallel as opposed to in a serial manner as depicted.” See also Par. 0029, 0068, 0084 (while a tool processes the shoe).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the steps of acquiring an image of the surface of a plane, using a controller to select a finishing tool depending on the unfinished-surface image state, wherein a robot uses a tool to remove surface material and repeat the finishing steps (Par. 0044) as in Sakai with a system of surface finishing that uses a vision system and compares image data with a CAD file that is a CAD model file (Par. 0063, last sentence) as in Hutchinson with a mobile autonomous platform where a robot is mounted and is movable about a printed part (item 603 and 1201) as in Konrath with using a robotic arm to buff a surface using a tool and capturing a three-dimensional surface scan and generating at three-dimensional surface map that is performed in parallel as in Regan in order to generate bit line data that creates a tool path for further processing of the shoe. (Par. 0042)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Hutchinson in further view of Konrath in further view of Regan in further view of Maloney et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20140088746), herein “Maloney.”
Regarding claim 8,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 8 depends. They do not teach comparing a scan to a CAD model to determine whether the finishing is complete. However, Maloney teaches comparing the surface finish map and the CAD model to determine whether the finishing operation is complete. (Par. 0078: “In step 2006 the finishing tool is maneuvered by the robot along the nominal path. Upon finishing the nominal path, or at measured intervals a measuring of the material removal and surface finish can be accomplished in step 2008. This measurement can in some embodiment be accomplished by a three dimensional scan of the workpiece. In step 2010 the scanned characteristics can then be compared against a three dimensional model having a designed geometry and surface finish for the workpiece, or in some embodiments a desired geometry of the workpiece at a given point in the finishing operation. If the characteristics are outside of machining tolerances for the given workpiece the nominal path is adjusted to compensate for the errors, otherwise in some embodiments the process ends while in other embodiments the finishing tool continues along the nominal path until complete or until another material removal surface consistency check is desired. In this way a finite element model simulation can be refined by experimentally measuring performance of the nominal path.” Par. 0039: “In a CAD model path generation step 106, a three-dimensional motion path can be developed based on a three-dimensional CAD model for the part to be finished. The CAD model can include a representative shape that the part can take before and/or after finishing.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the steps of acquiring an image of the surface of a plane, using a controller to select a finishing tool depending on the unfinished-surface image state, wherein a robot uses a tool to remove surface material and repeat the finishing steps (Par. 0044) as in Sakai with a system of surface finishing that uses a vision system and compares image data with a CAD file that is a CAD model file (Par. 0063, last sentence) as in Hutchinson with a mobile autonomous platform where a robot is mounted and is movable about a printed part (item 603 and 1201) as in Konrath with using a robotic arm to buff a surface using a tool and capturing a three-dimensional surface scan and generating at three-dimensional surface map that is performed in parallel as in Regan with scanning a workpiece and then compare the scan against a three dimensional model in order to determine whether the finishing tool is completed as in Maloney in order to whether a material removal surface consistency is within tolerance levels. (Par. 0078)
Claims 9, 10, 13 - 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Hutchinson in further view of Konrath in further view of Hauschulz (US PG Pub. No. 20230127208), herein “Hauschulz.”
Regarding claim 9,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 9 depends. They do not teach audio/voice input for control of the tool. However, Hauschulz teaches processing a voice input from an operator and controlling the robot according to the voice input. (Par. 0091: “Computer system 700 may also include an input device 732. In one example, a user of computer system 700 may enter commands and/or other information into computer system 700 via input device 732. Examples of an input device 732 include, but are not limited to, an alpha-numeric input device (e.g., a keyboard), a pointing device, a joystick, a gamepad, an audio input device (e.g., a microphone, a voice response system, etc.)…” Abstract: “A polishing tool may then be selected for the at least a surface as a function of the finish assignment and the polish strategy for the at least a surface. A reachable area is then determined of the at least a surface as a function of the polishing tool. The processor then generates a toolpath as a function of the reachable area.” Par. 0004, 0005, 0087 (control by computer and/or controller), and paragraphs 0019 and 0061 (robot/CNC machine).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the steps of acquiring an image of the surface of a plane, using a controller to select a finishing tool depending on the unfinished-surface image state, wherein a robot uses a tool to remove surface material and repeat the finishing steps (Par. 0044) as in Sakai with a system of surface finishing that uses a vision system and compares image data with a CAD file that is a CAD model file (Par. 0063, last sentence) as in Hutchinson with a mobile autonomous platform where a robot is mounted and is movable about a printed part (item 603 and 1201) as in Konrath with having a computer system that includes a controller that controls a robot and/or CNC machine that has input a voice/audio device as in Hauschulz in order to allow a user to input commands to the system using multiple methods such as joystick or hands free voice commands. (Par. 0091)
Regarding claim 10,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 10 depends. They do not teach audio/voice input for control of the tool and using artificial intelligence that controls the device using parameters such as shape and roughness. However, Hauschulz teaches the controller is configured to include an artificial intelligence (AI) enabled program that iteratively evaluates and adjusts the operating parameters based on voice input from an operator, data relating to geometry of the surface of the component, and measured surface roughness of the target area. (Hauschulz teaches using machine learning and/or and neural network (type of artificial intelligence) to calculate a polish strategy that includes shape and roughness of the object. See Par. 0031, 0034, 0035, 0042, 0043, 0045, 0063 – 0074, 0079, and 0081.)
Regarding claim 13, it is directed to a method of steps to implement the method of steps set forth in claims 1 and 9. Sakai, Hutchinson, and Konrath teach the elements of claim 1 and Sakai, Hutchinson, Konrath, and Hauschulz teach the elements of claim 9. Specifically, Sakai paragraph 0040 teaches selecting a specific tool; and Hauschulz teaches control movements of the equipment, that includes a robotic and/or CNC device, by audio or voice input (Par. 0091). Therefore, Sakai, Hutchinson, Konrath, and Hauschulz teach the method in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, it is dependent on claim 13 and is directed to a method of steps of pre-storing operating parameters corresponding to the tools. Sakai, Hutchinson, Konrath, and Hauschulz teach the elements of the claim 13. Sakai also teaches the element of teach pre-storing operating parameters corresponding to a plurality of finishing tools in a memory and operating the robot based on the operating parameters corresponding to the selected one of the tools for a particular finishing operation. (Par. 0026: “The storage device 23 stores a system program 23a, and the system program 23a handles basic functions of the controller 20.” Par. 0040: “Next, the controller 20 selects the specific tool 50 to be used on the basis of the surface removal program 23c (step S1-4).” Par. 0056: - selecting the correct tool based on parameters in the program and the surface states that the tool has the ability to finish the surface based on the state.) Therefore, Sakai, Hutchinson, and Hauschulz teach the method in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent on claim 13 and is directed to a method of steps of AI that adjusts parameters based on voice input. These elements are taught in claim 10 which Hauschulz teaches. Therefore, Sakai, Hutchinson, Konrath and Hauschulz teach the elements of the claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, it is dependent on claim 16 and mirrors those elements of claim 9 with voice input. Claim 19 also teaches selecting one of the tools based on voice input. Hauschulz teaches input as voice input (Par. 0091). Hauschulz also teaches inputs that include selection of a tool (Par. 0035, 0043, and 0081. See also Hauschulz claim 8 and 18. Therefore, Sakai, Hutchinson, Konrath and Hauschulz teach the elements of the claim 19.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Hutchinson in further view of Konrath in further view of Jacimovic et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20230256683), herein “Jacimovic.”
Regarding claim 12,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 1 which claim 12 depends. They do not teach comparing an image with a CAD model and determine whether it exceeds a threshold. However, Jacimovic teaches wherein the target area is determined when a difference in geometry between the CAD model and the image of the surface of the component exceeds a threshold. (Par. 0024: “Off-line generation of the synthetic image will likely provide reliable results in many cases but may face challenges with unexpected deformations in some 3D printed components 12. For this reason, a system that learns from existing experience is preferred. On-line learning may begin with the use of the off-line generated synthetic image on a new 3D printed component 12. Real captured images of the 3D printed component acquired during the cutting process (after removing each supporting structure 18, 20) may then be stored. The most recent images may then be compared with the original CAD model (i.e., initial synthetic image) as a quality control action. If differences from the reference CAD model are detected beyond a threshold, the synthetic image may be updated to adjust the image and the correct cutting paths 56.” Par. 0040: “The autonomous manufacturing production cell arrangement relies on production hardware (i.e., post-processing tools) as referred to above, such as 3D printers, lasers, robotic systems, CNC machines, storage shelves and conveyor belts.” See also Par. 0042 and 0043 – polishing and/or machining of surface edges.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the steps of acquiring an image of the surface of a plane, using a controller to select a finishing tool depending on the unfinished-surface image state, wherein a robot uses a tool to remove surface material and repeat the finishing steps (Par. 0044) as in Sakai with a system of surface finishing that uses a vision system and compares image data with a CAD file that is a CAD model file (Par. 0063, last sentence) as in Hutchinson with a mobile autonomous platform where a robot is mounted and is movable about a printed part (item 603 and 1201) as in Konrath with capturing images of the object that has been polished by a robot system and comparing the image with a CAD model to determine if it exceeds a threshold as in Jacimovic in order to certify the quality of the printing components that have been fine surface polished by a robotic system. (Par. 0043)
Regarding claim 20,
The previously cited references teach the limitations of claim 16 which claim 20 depends. They do not teach and autonomous platform. However, Jacimovic teaches the controller is configured to control the autonomous navigation platform to move the robot around the component. (Par. 0028: “. It is understood that the described system and methods may be implemented in the controller 30 in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium including program code that controls the 3D printer 14, vision system 24 and/or cutting system 32 to autonomously perform the described methods.” Par. 0042: “As soon as a component is 3D printed, the information is sent to a production block which processes it and sends instructions to a robotic system on how to remove the base plates with 3D printed components thereon and then autonomously executes post-processing tasks on the component, e.g., removal of support structures, machining of surface edges, polishing, heat treatment and quality inspection.”)
Response to Arguments
The examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s arguments. In the remarks, applicant argues that Hauzchultz does not describe or suggest a mobile platform which a robot is mounted. However, cited paragraph 0055 teaches a base table (item 212) that is moveable and several paragraphs teach a robot and/or cobot that is part of the machining system. Paragraph 0056 and figure 2 teach other components such as a support 208 that may be powered and figure 2 shows another spinning device below robotic device 204. It would have been obvious of one having ordinary skill to infer that any of the tools can be interchangeable and that the robot 204 can take the place of the spinning device attached the moveable platform. However, this argument may be moot as Konrath teaches the element of a robot that is mounted on a mobile platform that may be autonomous. Thus Hauzchultz and/or Konrath may teach the amended claim elements and the application is not allowable at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Davies et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20120050528) is related to the instant application and may also teach the elements of claim 7 of scanning a surface for a polishing machine and generating a map. Paragraph 0055: “Photogrammetry is used to determine the coordinates of the beam locations relative to the reference length and defined origin at the two windows, which is then used to define the incident and reflected beam orientations. The intersection of these beams is the coordinate of the reflection point on the surface. The beam must be scanned over the surface to build up/map out the surface profile. Alternatively vector calculus can be applied to determine the surface normal, and finally the profile is extracted via integration.” Par. 0072: “ They were manufactured from polycarbonate and made semi-transparent by lightly polishing the surface with a #600 grit sanding film on both sides. As a single beam is emitted from the laser diode, it passes through the semi-transparent windows where a footprint or spot is visible from the light diffusely scattering off each window.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD G ERDMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0177. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am - 3pm or 4pm EST..
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/CHAD G ERDMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights