DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-16 as originally filed are currently pending and have been considered as follows:
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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the terms “comprising” and “comprising” do not exclude other elements…” it is noted that “comprising” and “comprising” is an obvious duplicate / wrong second term.
“between 80° and 25°, preferably an angle between 60° and 35° and particularly preferably between 50° and 40°.” in ¶22 reads like a range error - typical convention is low-to-high. Revise accordingly (i.e. “between 25° and 80°”, etc.).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “wherein the emitted laser beams enclose an angle between 80° and 25°, preferably an angle between 60° and 35° and particularly preferably between 50° and 40°.” This claim construction reads like a range error, please amend to typical convention of low-to-high. (i.e. “between 25° and 80°”, etc.).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the first and/or second component are each moved … by the first and/or second robot arm ….” This “and/or” drafting renders the scope unclear because it permits multiple materially different interpretations regarding (i) which component(s) must be moved (first only, second only, or both), and (ii) which robot arm(s) must perform the moving (first arm only, second arm only, or both), while the phrase “are each moved” conflicts with the optionality as per “and/or.” Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “between 80° and 25°, preferably … and particularly preferably ….” The inclusion of “preferably” / “particularly preferably” within the claim renders it unclear whether the “preferred” sub-ranges are claim limitations or merely non-limiting statements of preference. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 11 recites determining “two planes … and calculate their intersection lines.” The intersection of two non-parallel planes is a single line; reciting “intersection lines” (plural) renders the scope unclear as to whether the claim requires multiple intersection lines and, if so, under what circumstances. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “A use of a robotic arm and/or at least one laser scanning unit in a method according to claim 1 and/or in a robotic arm system.” This “and/or” drafting renders the scope unclear because it permits multiple materially different interpretations regarding (i) use of the robotic arm alone, (ii) use of the laser scanning unit alone, or (iii) use of both, and whether the “use” must occur (a) in the method of claim 1, (b) in a robotic arm system, or (c) both. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
13. A computer program element comprising instructions configured, when executed on computer devices of a computer environment, to execute the steps of the method according to claim 1 in a robotic arm system.
In particular, claim 13 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because claim 13 is directed to a “computer program element comprising instructions …”, i.e., a computer program per se (software per se) / mere information claimed as a product without any structural recitations or physical/tangible embodiment.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “computer program element comprising instructions” is a set of instructions/code detached from any claimed storage medium or other physical article. As explained in MPEP 2106, products that do not have a physical or tangible form -such as a “computer program per se (software per se) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations” - are not within a statutory category.
Accordingly, claim 13 fails Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis (Step 1: NO) and is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walser (US Pub. No. 20120072021) in view of Kay (US Pub. No. 20090055024).
As per Claim 1, Walser discloses of highly precisely positioning at least one object in an end position in space:
positioning a first component relative to a second component by a robotic arm system, (as per “By way of example the industrial robot 11 is an articulated-arm robot having a gripper 11 a, which is adjustable within six degrees of freedom” in ¶49, as per “already described and/or to highly precisely align the first object relative to the second object” in ¶83)
providing at least a first robot arm arranged to hold and move a first component relative to a second component, wherein the robot arm is further arranged to be moved coordinate-based; (as per “by means of an industrial robot, highly precisely to a specific position and alignment in space for carrying out a work step” in ¶1, as per “The position of the gripping apparatus with the TCP thereof preferably relates to the world coordinate system, the spatial coordinate system or the cell coordinate system which, for example, is directly or indirectly related to the base of the first axis, the primary axis, the basic frame or the robot base of the robot and is coupled thereto” in ¶2, as per “The second end position of the second object 22 in the spatial coordinate system is then determined from the position P of the 3D image recording device 1, the angular alignments of the 3D image recording device 1, said angular alignments being detected by the angle measuring unit 4, the second three-dimensional image and the knowledge of the second features 23 on the second object 22… Alternatively, before the first object 12 is highly precisely adjusted to the first end position, the second object 22 is gripped by the second industrial robot 21” in ¶84-¶85, as per Fig. 2)
providing at least one laser scanning unit (as per “A laser scanner can be used for detecting the depth information” in ¶75, as per “A laser triangulation method in which previously defined points on the workpiece are measured is mentioned generally as a possible measuring system” in ¶6)
picking up the first component by the first robot arm and moving the first component relative to the second component according to a coordinate-based calculated position; (as per “A first object, which has known optically detectable first features, is gripped and held by the first industrial robot” in ¶32, as per “In these cases in FIG. 2, the first end position for the first object 12 is calculated from the second end position of the second object 22 and a predetermined relative position between the first object 12 and the second object 22. Since the first object 12 is highly precisely positioned relative to the second object 22, a joining method, for example, can then be carried out for precisely connecting the two objects” in ¶86, as per “Calculating a new desired position of the first industrial robot taking account of the first compensation variable from the present position of the first industrial robot, and a variable which is linked to the position difference, and adjusting the first industrial robot to the new desired position” in ¶34)
providing a position correction value based on the detected distance of the first component to the second component; (as per “The present position is then compared with the desired position, that is to say the first end position. The position difference between the present position of the first object 12 and the first end position is calculated. A new desired position of the first industrial robot 11 is thereupon calculated. This is done taking account of the first compensation variable from the present position of the first industrial robot 11 and a variable linked to the position difference” in ¶71, as per ¶34)
moving at least one of the components to an end position based on the provided position correction value. (as per “and at least the determined position of the first object in the first compensation position of the first industrial robot… The first object is highly precisely adjusted to a first end position by the following steps, which are repeated until the first end position is reached in a predetermined tolerance” in ¶34-¶35, as per “said desired position being calculated from its present position and the variable linked to the position difference, taking account of the first compensation variable. These steps are repeated until the first object 12 has reached the first end position highly precisely within the tolerance” in ¶72)
Walser fails to expressly disclose:
detect a distance between the first component and the second component;
detecting a distance of the first component in its coordinate-based calculated position to the second component by the laser scanning unit;
Kay discloses of a robotic arm and control system, comprising:
detect a distance between the first component and the second component; (as per “Controller 24 computes the difference between the spatial location of target object 20 and the spatial location of end effector 26” in ¶38, as per “(or computations performed in controller 24) computes the spatial locations of the active fiducials and target object” in ¶37)
detecting a distance of the first component in its coordinate-based calculated position to the second component by the laser scanning unit; (as per “By identifying and knowing the spatial position of each fiducial, and combining this data with knowledge of where each fiducial is physically located on robotic arm 10, module 44 can compute the spatial location of the arm” in ¶42, as per “when a scanning laser is employed, triangulate on the spot or line created by the scanning laser to generate a 3D image of the target object” in ¶46, as per “Controller 24 is arranged to provide closed loop control of arm 10: the controller uses the spatial position data provided by 3D camera 16 as feedback to continuously guide the arm towards target object 20” in ¶22)
In this way, the system operates to provide closed-loop guidance using sensed spatial position / distance information to guide a robotic arm toward a target object (¶22). Like Walser, Kay is concerned with precision positioning and correcting positioning error.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser with the robotic arm as taught by Kay to enable another standard means of detecting error and correcting robot motion during positioning, thereby improving alignment accuracy (¶22).
As per Claim 2, the combination of Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walser further discloses wherein at least the second component is arranged in a holding device. (as per “a second industrial robot 21 and an object mount 24 are provided. Before the first object 12 is highly precisely adjusted to the first end position, as described above, a second object 22 is gripped by the second industrial robot 21 and positioned into the object mount 24” in ¶84, as per “and/or to have corresponding clamping apparatuses for fixing the object. After positioning in the object mount 24, the second object 22 is situated in a second end position in the spatial coordinate system” in ¶84)
As per Claim 3, the combination of Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walser further discloses wherein the robotic arm system comprises at least a second robot arm arranged to hold and move the second component. (as per “before the first object 12 is highly precisely adjusted to the first end position, the second object 22 is gripped by the second industrial robot 21 within a gripping tolerance and is not placed into the object mount 24, but rather held” in ¶85, as per “The second industrial robot 21 is adjusted to an end position of the second industrial robot 21, in which the second object 22 is situated in the second end position” in ¶85)
As per Claim 4, the combination of Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walser further discloses wherein the first and/or second component are each moved to an end position by the first and/or second robot arm based on the provided position correction value. (as per “calculating the position difference between the present position of the first object and the first end position;” in Claim 23, as per “the angular alignment of the 3D image recording device 1, said angular alignment being detected by the angle measuring unit 4, the further second three-dimensional image and the knowledge of the second features 23 on the second object 22. The position difference between the present position of the second object 22 and the second end position is calculated. After the calculation of a new desired position of the second industrial robot 21 taking account of the second compensation variable from the present position of the second industrial robot 21 and a variable linked to the position difference, the second industrial robot 21 is adjusted to the new desired position” in ¶88)
As per Claim 5, the combination of Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walser further discloses wherein the robotic arm system comprises at least a third robotic arm configured to connect the first and second components in the end position. (as per “with three industrial robots for positioning a first and second object and a processing tool” in ¶45, as per Fig. 3, as per “a third object 32 embodied as a processing tool is provided. The processing tool 32 is held by a third industrial robot 31 within a holding tolerance. The processing tool 32 or a part of the third industrial robot 31 that is coupled thereto, for example the receptacle of the processing tool 32, has known optically detectable third features 33” in ¶92)
As per Claim 12, Walser discloses of highly precisely positioning at least one object in an end position in space:
robotic arm system for positioning a first component relative to a second component, (as per “By way of example the industrial robot 11 is an articulated-arm robot having a gripper 11 a, which is adjustable within six degrees of freedom” in ¶49, as per “already described and/or to highly precisely align the first object relative to the second object” in ¶83)
at least a first robot arm configured to hold and move the first component relative to the second component, wherein the robot arm is further configured to be moved coordinate-based; (as per “by means of an industrial robot, highly precisely to a specific position and alignment in space for carrying out a work step” in ¶1, as per “The position of the gripping apparatus with the TCP thereof preferably relates to the world coordinate system, the spatial coordinate system or the cell coordinate system which, for example, is directly or indirectly related to the base of the first axis, the primary axis, the basic frame or the robot base of the robot and is coupled thereto” in ¶2, as per “The second end position of the second object 22 in the spatial coordinate system is then determined from the position P of the 3D image recording device 1, the angular alignments of the 3D image recording device 1, said angular alignments being detected by the angle measuring unit 4, the second three-dimensional image and the knowledge of the second features 23 on the second object 22… Alternatively, before the first object 12 is highly precisely adjusted to the first end position, the second object 22 is gripped by the second industrial robot 21” in ¶84-¶85, as per Fig. 2)
at least one laser scanning unit (as per “A laser scanner can be used for detecting the depth information” in ¶75, as per “A laser triangulation method in which previously defined points on the workpiece are measured is mentioned generally as a possible measuring system” in ¶6)
Walser fails to expressly disclose:
detect a distance between the first component and the second component.
Kay discloses of a robotic arm and control system, comprising:
detect a distance between the first component and the second component. (as per “Controller 24 computes the difference between the spatial location of target object 20 and the spatial location of end effector 26” in ¶38, as per “(or computations performed in controller 24) computes the spatial locations of the active fiducials and target object” in ¶37)
In this way, the system operates to provide closed-loop guidance using sensed spatial position / distance information to guide a robotic arm toward a target object (¶22). Like Walser, Kay is concerned with precision positioning and correcting positioning error.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser with the robotic arm as taught by Kay to enable another standard means of detecting error and correcting robot motion during positioning, thereby improving alignment accuracy (¶22).
As per Claim 13, the combination of Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walser further discloses a computer program element comprising instructions configured, when executed on computer devices of a computer environment (as per “The control apparatus has a data processing device designed for image processing” in ¶35, as per “The control apparatus 9 has a data processing device designed for image processing.” in ¶57, as per “reference and calibration parameters, in particular the individual positions, alignments and dimensions of the components involved, are—in so far as is necessary for carrying out the method—stored in the control apparatus 9” in ¶57) to execute the steps of the method according to claim 1 in a robotic arm system.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walser further discloses a use of a robotic arm and/or at least one laser scanning unit in a method according to claim 1 and/or in a robotic arm system. (as per “By way of example the industrial robot 11 is an articulated-arm robot having a gripper 11 a, which is adjustable within six degrees of freedom. The gripper 11 a is embodied as a pneumatic gripper, for example for gripping a piece of sheet metal” in ¶49, as per “A laser scanner can be used for detecting the depth information” in ¶75)
As per Claim 15, the combination of Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walser further disclose of a steel frame manufactured according to a method according to claim 1. (as per “for example in the automotive industry, in which an object for example a sheet metal or other body part” in ¶1, as per “the method described is suitable, in particular, for welding sheet metal parts, primarily in the automotive industry” in ¶6)
Claim(s) 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walser (US Pub. No. 20120072021) in view of Kay (US Pub. No. 20090055024) in further view of Sarh (US Pub. No. 20150367516).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Walser and Kay fail to expressly disclose wherein the system comprises at least two laser scanning units.
Sarh discloses of robot alignment systems and methods of aligning a robot, wherein the system comprises at least two laser scanning units. (as per “Laser range finder 243 may include a first laser range finder, a second laser range finder, a third laser range finder, and/or a fourth laser range finder. In some examples, the first laser range finder and the second laser range finder may be positioned approximately along the X-axis of platform 208, and the third laser range finder and the fourth laser range finder may be positioned approximately along the Y-axis of platform 208 (e.g., a first line formed between the first laser range finder and the second laser range finder may be approximately perpendicular to a second line formed between the third laser range finder and the fourth laser range finder)” in ¶38)
In this way, Sarh operates to provide a system with multiple laser range finders arranged along different axes to determine positional relationships using multiple distance measurements (¶38). Like Walser and Kay, Sarh is concerned with improving robot alignment accuracy (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser and Kay with Sarh’s multiple-laser arrangement to enable another standard means of increasing robustness and accuracy of position sensing (i.e. reducing occlusion sensitivity and improving measurement reliability by using more than one ranging device), consistent with the shared goal of higher-accuracy alignment (¶38).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Walser, Kay, and Sarh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Walser and Kay fail to expressly disclose wherein the at least two laser scanning units are rigidly arranged relative to each other.
See Claim 6 for teachings of Sarh. Sarh further discloses wherein the at least two laser scanning units are rigidly arranged relative to each other. (as per “One or more positioning devices 216 may be positioned on or coupled to the robot 202, such as on upper platform 208. Positioning devices 216 may function to gather data needed to position upper platform 208, arm 214, and/or end effector 212 with respect to part 204 and/or a port or opening 218 formed in part 20” in ¶21, as per “FIG. 5, positioning devices 216 may include one or more laser devices 246 (e.g., a linear laser), laser range finders 243, cameras 241, ultrasonic sensors, and/or any other distance sensing device.” In ¶29, as per “As shown in FIG. 6, laser range finders 243 a, 243 b, 243 c, and 243 d may be aligned in a particular arrangement on upper platform 208” in ¶43)
In this way, Sarh operates to provide a system with multiple laser range finders arranged along different axes to determine positional relationships using multiple distance measurements (¶38). Like Walser and Kay, Sarh is concerned with improving robot alignment accuracy (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser and Kay with Sarh’s multiple-laser arrangement to enable another standard means of increasing robustness and accuracy of position sensing (i.e. reducing occlusion sensitivity and improving measurement reliability by using more than one ranging device), consistent with the shared goal of higher-accuracy alignment (¶38).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Walser, Kay, and Sarh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Walser and Kay fail to expressly disclose wherein the at least two laser scanning units are arranged such that the emitted laser beams can be emitted at an angle to each other.
See Claim 6 for teachings of Sarh. Sarh further discloses wherein the at least two laser scanning units are arranged such that the emitted laser beams can be emitted at an angle to each other. (as per “the first linear laser being configured to project a first visible laser beam onto calibration image 230 and the second linear laser being configured to project a second visible laser beam onto calibration image 230, the second visible laser beam being approximately perpendicular to the first visible laser beam. Processor 236 may compare the location of the first and the second lasers to aspects of calibration image 230 in order to determine dimensional offsets based on image data 240 obtained and/or generated by camera 241” in ¶37, as per “In other examples, the projected lasers may be parallel to each other, or arranged at a non-parallel and non-perpendicular angle to one another” in ¶56)
In this way, Sarh operates to provide a system with multiple laser range finders arranged along different axes to determine positional relationships using multiple distance measurements (¶38). Like Walser and Kay, Sarh is concerned with improving robot alignment accuracy (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser and Kay with Sarh’s multiple-laser arrangement to enable another standard means of increasing robustness and accuracy of position sensing (i.e. reducing occlusion sensitivity and improving measurement reliability by using more than one ranging device), consistent with the shared goal of higher-accuracy alignment (¶38).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walser (US Pub. No. 20120072021) in view of Kay (US Pub. No. 20090055024) in view of Sarh (US Pub. No. 20150367516) in further view of Demirel (US Pub. No. 20170010356).
As per Claim 9, the combination of Walser, Kay, and Sarh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 8. Walser, Kay, and Sarh fail to expressly disclose wherein the emitted laser beams enclose an angle between 80° and 25°, preferably an angle between 60° and 35° and particularly preferably between 50° and 40°.
Demirel discloses of a 3d measuring machine wherein the emitted laser beams (as per “In those vision measuring machines usually more than one laser source is provided, wherein the emitted laser beams are distinguished by their different frequencies or signal codes. Using more than one laser source allows for determining simultaneously distances for as many points of the object surface as laser sources available” in ¶4) enclose an angle between 80° and 25°, preferably an angle between 60° and 35° and particularly preferably between 50° and 40°. (as per “other side can be as well be chosen perpendicular to oval or line-like laser beam or in any angle in-between” in ¶11, as per “or line like 16 cross-section oriented with its length in any angle in-between 30° and 90° to the triangulation baseline 1” in ¶58)
In this way, Demirel operates to provide multiple laser sources where the laser beam orientation can be selected at various angles (¶4). Like Walser, Kay, and Sarh, Demirel is concerned with laser-based measurement configurations (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser, Kay, and Sarh with Demirel’s teachings regarding intermediate laser-beam angles to enable another standard means of choosing an appropriate geometry for the particular measurement environment, thereby improving system performance (¶4).
As per Claim 10, the combination of Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Walser and Kay fail to expressly disclose wherein the at least two laser scanning units are arranged movably relative to each other.
See Claim 6 for teachings of Sarh. Sarh further discloses wherein the at least two laser scanning units. (as per “Laser range finder 243 may include a first laser range finder, a second laser range finder, a third laser range finder, and/or a fourth laser range finder. In some examples, the first laser range finder and the second laser range finder may be positioned approximately along the X-axis of platform 208, and the third laser range finder and the fourth laser range finder may be positioned approximately along the Y-axis of platform 208 (e.g., a first line formed between the first laser range finder and the second laser range finder may be approximately perpendicular to a second line formed between the third laser range finder and the fourth laser range finder)” in ¶38)
In this way, Sarh operates to provide a system with multiple laser range finders arranged along different axes to determine positional relationships using multiple distance measurements (¶38). Like Walser and Kay, Sarh is concerned with improving robot alignment accuracy (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser and Kay with Sarh’s multiple-laser arrangement to enable another standard means of increasing robustness and accuracy of position sensing (i.e. reducing occlusion sensitivity and improving measurement reliability by using more than one ranging device), consistent with the shared goal of higher-accuracy alignment (¶38).
Walser, Kay, and Sarh fail to expressly disclose units are arranged movably relative to each other.
Demirel discloses of a 3d measuring machine comprising units are arranged movably relative to each other. (as per “the laser source emitting the laser beam is arranged movable or movable together with the camera, respectively” in ¶27, as per “It will be appreciated that laser source 14 might have a focusing unit and might be fixed at the movable plate 62 in a way that it is pivotable, preferably with a spherical joint or at least the laser beam is movable accordingly by a mirror or prism etc. and/or that the laser source or the laser beam respectively is lateral movable, so that it might be adjustable if necessary by pivoting, focusing or moving it laterally” in ¶56)
In this way, Demirel operates to provide multiple laser sources where the laser beam orientation can be selected at various angles (¶4). Like Walser, Kay, and Sarh, Demirel is concerned with laser-based measurement configurations (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser, Kay, and Sarh with Demirel’s teachings regarding intermediate laser-beam angles to enable another standard means of choosing an appropriate geometry for the particular measurement environment, thereby improving system performance (¶4).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walser (US Pub. No. 20120072021) in view of Kay (US Pub. No. 20090055024) in view of Sarh (US Pub. No. 20150367516) in further view of Kitamura (US Pub. No. 20130121564).
As per Claim 11, Walser, Kay, and Sarh teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Walser, Kay, and Sarh fail to expressly disclose wherein the laser scanning unit is configured to determine two planes by scanning and to calculate their intersection lines.
Kitamura further discloses wherein the laser scanning unit is configured to determine two planes by scanning and to calculate their intersection lines. (as per “The plane labeling unit adds identical labels to points in the same planes other than the points removed by the non-plane area removing unit so as to label planes” in ¶8, as per “the equation of the local flat plane that fits to the target local area is obtained by the least-squares method” in ¶66, as per “First, the flat planes 132 and 131 are extended, and a line 134 of intersection thereof is calculated. The line 134 of the intersection is used as a contour that is estimated” in ¶86, as per “The line of intersection calculating unit 143 calculates a line of intersection of the first plane and the second plane that are extended” in ¶88)
In this way, Kitamura operates to determine planes from scanned point cloud data and calculate a line of intersection between planes (¶86). Like Walser, Kay, and Sarh, Kitamura is concerned with improving geometric understanding.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser, Kay, and Sarh system with Kitamura’s plane extraction processing to enable another standard means of deriving geometric references from scan data (e.g., planes and their intersection lines) for calibration, alignment, and/or verification of relative component positioning (¶86).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walser (US Pub. No. 20120072021) in view of Kay (US Pub. No. 20090055024) in further view of Baron (US Pub. No. 20220145648).
As per Claim 16, Walser and Kay teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Walser and Kay fail to expressly disclose wherein the steel frame is for a formwork element.
Baron discloses of formwork frame, formwork element, and ceiling formwork, wherein the steel frame is for a formwork element. (as per “the first and second cross-supports and the connecting piece are produced from metal” in ¶15, as per “formwork frame for a formwork element of a ceiling formwork” in ¶1, as per “The invention also relates to a formwork element having such a formwork frame and to a ceiling formwork having the formwork element. Finally, the invention relates to a method for constructing such a ceiling formwork” in ¶1)
In this way, Baron operates to provide a formwork frame for a formwork element, including a disclosed formwork element context and associated structural frame implementation (¶1). Like Walser and Kay, Baron is concerned with manufactured structural components.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Walser and Kay with the assembly of a steel frame for a formwork element as taught by Baron to enable another standard means of achieving precise alignment of structural members during fabrication (¶1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(DE Pub. No. 102004049332) discloses a method for automated positioning of parts to be joined, comprising use of robots provided with sensor units.
Walser (US Pub. No. 20100274390) discloses a method and system for the high-precision positioning of at least one object in a final location in space.
Harada (US Pub. No. 20230278196) discloses a robot system.
Ooba (US Pub. No. 20210031372) discloses a robot control system of fitting of a plurality of points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER R ROBARGE whose telephone number is (703)756-5872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658