DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is made final.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16, and 18-20 filed on 05/18/2026 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 6, 8, 15, and 17 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 05/18/2026, have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 102.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that Polidor is directed to matching a CAD model to a test object, while Zhang is directed to separately controlling a robot to apply glue. Applicant further contends that Polidor does not teach robot-controlled processing and that Zhang does not teach using Polidor’s determined corresponding model/workpiece point as the basis for that processing. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that Polidor and Zhang cannot be combined, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of Zhang may be bodily incorporated into Polidor’s system; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in either reference alone. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2145; In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Polidor teaches determining corresponding points between a CAD model and an actual object. Specifically, Polidor teaches “extracting a peripheral boundary” of the test object, “extracting a silhouette boundary of the 3D CAD model,” “relatively positioning the silhouette boundary of the 3D CAD model to match the peripheral boundary of the test object,” and “matching coordinates of points in the 3D CAD model to coordinates of corresponding points of the test object” (see [0004]). Polidor further teaches that, after the CAD model and test object are matched, the user can choose points to be measured from the 3D CAD model and the system can use the known corresponding coordinates of the test object (see [0041]).
Zhang teaches using contour-derived point information to control a robot to process a product. Zhang teaches acquiring 3D point-cloud data of the product, identifying the product outline, automatically calculating the robot’s adhesive application points and corresponding postures, sending those points to the robot, and causing the robot to complete adhesive application based on the received points (see [0006]). Zhang further teaches that the extracted contour data includes “Up: the set of extracted contour points of the product to be coated,” and that “the robot’s initial adhesive application trajectory point information is obtained by using the three-dimensional information data Up, Un, Ut, Ur of the contour” (see [0015], [0023]). Zhang then teaches sending the final trajectory point information to the robot and states that “the robot applies glue to the product based on the received data” (see [0046]).
Thus, Polidor teaches the model-to-workpiece point correspondence, and Zhang teaches robot-controlled processing based on contour-derived point/trajectory information. In the proposed combination, Polidor’s corresponding workpiece point is used as point/location information for Zhang’s robot-processing technique. The amended claim requires processing the target workpiece “based on” the target workpiece point, and Zhang teaches robot processing based on received trajectory point data.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since the cited prior art describes the limitations in these claims. For at least these reasons, the rejection is still deemed proper and has been maintained.
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 9 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites “processing the workpiece comprises processing the workpiece based on any of: a gluing operation, a drilling operation, a machining operation, and a welding operation.” However, amended claim 1 recites processing the target workpiece, while the workpiece is recited as a sample workpiece representing an ideal workpiece. It is unclear whether claim 9’s recitation of “processing the workpiece” refers to processing the sample workpiece or the target workpiece, and it is further unclear how this limitation related to the “processing the target workpiece” step of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “processing the workpiece” will be interpreted as “processing the target workpiece.”
Claim 18 recites limitations corresponding to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reason.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 19 and 20 fail to further limit amended claims 10 and 1, respectively, as the limitations of claims 19 and 20 are now included in amended claims 10 and 1.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a model acquisition module in claim 10, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a workpiece acquisition module in claim 10, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a workpiece determination module in claims 10 and 13, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a workpiece alignment module in claim 11, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a workpiece identification module in claims 11 and 12, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a matrix determination module in claim 12, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a model section module in claims 13 and 14, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a workpiece section module in claim 13, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a point determination module in claim 14, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a circle determination module in claim 14, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a tangent determination module in claim 14, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a target workpiece acquisition module in claim 10, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a target workpiece determination module in claim 10, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
an input reception module in claim 16, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
an adjustment module in claim 16, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
a processing module in claims 10 and 19, which is interpreted a computer program product tangibly stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, or equivalent thereof performing the claimed function, as supported in [0079] of Applicant’s Specification
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-11, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polidor et al. (US 2018/0247147 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2020/133873 A1) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping, attached to this action).
Regarding claim 1, Polidor teaches a method of determining a point for processing a workpiece, comprising:
acquiring a plurality of model contour points representing a contour of a model associated with the workpiece ([0004]: “extracting a silhouette boundary of the 3D CAD model in a corresponding datum plane”) and a model point representing a position for processing the model ([0015]: “selecting a feature of the CAD model within the model window and identifying coordinates of one or more points of the feature”);
acquiring a plurality of workpiece contour points representing a contour of the workpiece ([0004]: “taking an image of the test object on the motion stage with the camera and extracting a peripheral boundary in a datum plane normal to the viewing axis of the camera”);
determining, based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points, a workpiece point that corresponds to the model point for processing the workpiece ([0004]: “matching coordinates of points in the 3D CAD model to coordinates of corresponding points of the test object”);
wherein the workpiece is a sample workpiece representing an ideal workpiece based on the model ([0004]: “A method of aligning a 3D CAD model to a test object in a machine vision system is provided,” where a test object corresponds to a sample workpiece representing an ideal workpiece);
acquiring a plurality of target workpiece contour points representing a contour of a target workpiece that is to be processed ([0004]: “taking an image of the test object on the motion stage with the camera and extracting a peripheral boundary in a datum plane normal to the viewing axis of the camera”);
determining, based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of target workpiece contour points, a target workpiece point corresponding to the model point for processing the workpiece ([0004]: “matching coordinates of points in the 3D CAD model to coordinates of corresponding points of the test object”).
While Polidor teaches acquiring a plurality of workpiece contour points from a laser 3D scanner or any device arranged to obtain image data ([0032]: “other devices may be used, including, but not limited to a still camera, a laser 3D scanner, or any device arranged to obtain image data of the test object 20 and send the image data to the machine vision system 10 via a test object data interface 110”), Polidor does not explicitly teach “processing the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point by controlling a robot to perform any of: a gluing operation, a drilling operation, a machining operation, or a welding operation.”
Zhang further teaches processing the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point ([0046]: “The robot applies glue to the product based on the received data, thus achieving automation by enabling the robot to apply glue without human instruction and adapt to the placement of the product”) by controlling a robot to perform any of: a gluing operation, a drilling operation, a machining operation, or a welding operation ([0046]: “The robot applies glue to the product based on the received data, thus achieving automation by enabling the robot to apply glue without human instruction and adapt to the placement of the product”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Polidor to incorporate the teachings of Zhang so as to include processing the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point by controlling a robot to perform any of: a gluing operation, a drilling operation, a machining operation, or a welding operation. Doing so would allow positions of workpieces to be automatically adjusted with the aim of reducing production cost (Zhang, [0047]: “the current methods in the industry cannot adapt to the placement position of the product to be coated with adhesive, which increases the risk of defective products caused by incorrect adhesive application due to deviations in the placement position of the product to be coated with adhesive, resulting in rework of defective products, losses, and wasted time”; [0003]: “The purpose of this invention is to overcome the shortcomings of existing technologies and propose an automatic production method for robot adhesive application trajectory based on three-dimensional vision, which can realize the base adhesive application trajectory calculation in real time without robot teaching”).
Regarding claim 2, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1.
Polidor further teaches wherein determining the workpiece point comprises: aligning the workpiece to the model based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points ([0004]: “relatively positioning the silhouette boundary of the 3D CAD model to match the peripheral boundary of the test object in the corresponding datum plane using a fitting algorithm”); and
identifying the workpiece point based on a point corresponding to the model point that is mapped to a contour of the aligned workpiece ([0010]: “automatically translating at least one of the motion stage and the camera to a desired position based on the matching coordinates of points in the 3D CAD model to coordinates of corresponding points of the test object”).
Regarding claim 7, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1.
Polidor does not explicitly teach “receiving an input representing an offset for adjusting the workpiece point; and adjusting the target workpiece point based on the input.”
Zhang further teaches further comprising: receiving an input representing an offset for adjusting the workpiece point ([0024-0025]: “The robot's posture offset is set according to the gluing process of the product to be glued. The robot's attitude offset (attitude offset parameters) include: Zoffset: position offset in the Z direction of space; AngleReal: angular rotation along the tangential direction of the contour point of the product to be coated; Roffset: radial position offset along the contour point of the product to be coated; TCP_COffsetReal: angular rotation along the contour point TCP of the product to be coated”); and
adjusting the target workpiece point based on the input ([0043-0044]: “The final glue application trajectory point information required for the robot is as follows: PosPt=[a+TCP_COffsetReal, b, c, PtOnCam14, PtOnCam24, PtOnCam34]”).
Zhang further teaches further comprising: processing the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point ([0046]: “The robot applies glue to the product based on the received data, thus achieving automation by enabling the robot to apply glue without human instruction and adapt to the placement of the product”).
Regarding claim 9, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1.
While Polidor teaches acquiring a plurality of workpiece contour points from a laser 3D scanner or any device arranged to obtain image data ([0032]: “other devices may be used, including, but not limited to a still camera, a laser 3D scanner, or any device arranged to obtain image data of the test object 20 and send the image data to the machine vision system 10 via a test object data interface 110”), Polidor does not explicitly teach “acquiring the plurality of workpiece contour points comprises: acquiring the plurality of workpiece contour points from a 3D camera.”
Zhang further teaches wherein acquiring the plurality of workpiece contour points comprises: acquiring the plurality of workpiece contour points from a 3D camera ([0055]: “The 3D camera has the function of taking pictures in real time and acquiring 3D point cloud Data”); and
processing the workpiece comprises processing the workpiece based on any of: a gluing operation, a drilling operation, a machining operation, and a welding operation ([0046]: “The robot applies glue to the product based on the received data, thus achieving automation by enabling the robot to apply glue without human instruction and adapt to the placement of the product”).
Regarding claim 10, Polidor teaches an apparatus for determining a point for processing a workpiece, comprising:
a model acquisition module configured to acquire a plurality of model contour points representing a contour of a model associated with the workpiece ([0004]: “extracting a silhouette boundary of the 3D CAD model in a corresponding datum plane”) and a model point representing a position for processing the model ([0015]: “selecting a feature of the CAD model within the model window and identifying coordinates of one or more points of the feature”);
a workpiece acquisition module configured to acquire a plurality of workpiece contour points representing a contour of the workpiece ([0004]: “taking an image of the test object on the motion stage with the camera and extracting a peripheral boundary in a datum plane normal to the viewing axis of the camera”);
a workpiece determination module configured to determine, based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points, a workpiece point that corresponds to the model point for processing the workpiece ([0004]: “matching coordinates of points in the 3D CAD model to coordinates of corresponding points of the test object”);
wherein the workpiece is a sample workpiece representing an ideal workpiece based on the model ([0004]: “A method of aligning a 3D CAD model to a test object in a machine vision system is provided,” where a test object corresponds to a sample workpiece representing an ideal workpiece); and
the apparatus further comprises: a target workpiece acquisition module configured to acquire a plurality of target workpiece contour points representing a contour of a target workpiece that is to be processed ([0004]: “taking an image of the test object on the motion stage with the camera and extracting a peripheral boundary in a datum plane normal to the viewing axis of the camera”); and
a target workpiece determination module configured to determine, based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of target workpiece contour points, a target workpiece point corresponding to the model point for processing the workpiece ([0004]: “matching coordinates of points in the 3D CAD model to coordinates of corresponding points of the test object”).
Polidor does not explicitly teach “a processing module configured to process the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point.”
Zhang further teaches a processing module configured to process the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point ([0046]: “The robot applies glue to the product based on the received data, thus achieving automation by enabling the robot to apply glue without human instruction and adapt to the placement of the product”).
The reasons to combine Zhang into Polidor are the same as articulated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Polidor further teaches wherein the workpiece determination module comprises: a workpiece alignment module configured to align the workpiece to the model based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points ([0004]: “relatively positioning the silhouette boundary of the 3D CAD model to match the peripheral boundary of the test object in the corresponding datum plane using a fitting algorithm”); and
a workpiece identification module configured to identify the workpiece point based on a point corresponding to the model point that is mapped to a contour of the aligned workpiece ([0010]: “automatically translating at least one of the motion stage and the camera to a desired position based on the matching coordinates of points in the 3D CAD model to coordinates of corresponding points of the test object”).
Regarding claim 16, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Polidor does not explicitly teach “an input reception module configured to receive an input representing an offset for adjusting the workpiece point; and an adjustment module configured to adjust the target workpiece point based on the input.”
Zhang further teaches further comprising: an input reception module configured to receive an input representing an offset for adjusting the workpiece point ([0024-0025]: “The robot's posture offset is set according to the gluing process of the product to be glued. The robot's attitude offset (attitude offset parameters) include: Zoffset: position offset in the Z direction of space; AngleReal: angular rotation along the tangential direction of the contour point of the product to be coated; Roffset: radial position offset along the contour point of the product to be coated; TCP_COffsetReal: angular rotation along the contour point TCP of the product to be coated”); and
an adjustment module configured to adjust the target workpiece point based on the input ([0043-0044]: “The final glue application trajectory point information required for the robot is as follows: PosPt=[a+TCP_COffsetReal, b, c, PtOnCam14, PtOnCam24, PtOnCam34]”).
Regarding claim 18, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
While Polidor teaches acquiring a plurality of workpiece contour points from a laser 3D scanner or any device arranged to obtain image data ([0032]: “other devices may be used, including, but not limited to a still camera, a laser 3D scanner, or any device arranged to obtain image data of the test object 20 and send the image data to the machine vision system 10 via a test object data interface 110”), Polidor does not explicitly teach “acquiring the plurality of workpiece contour points comprises: acquiring the plurality of workpiece contour points from a 3D camera.”
Zhang further teaches wherein acquiring the plurality of workpiece contour points comprises: acquiring the plurality of workpiece contour points from a 3D camera ([0055]: “The 3D camera has the function of taking pictures in real time and acquiring 3D point cloud Data”); and
processing the workpiece comprises processing the workpiece based on any of: a gluing operation, a drilling operation, a machining operation and a welding operation ([0046]: “The robot applies glue to the product based on the received data, thus achieving automation by enabling the robot to apply glue without human instruction and adapt to the placement of the product”).
Regarding claim 19, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Polidor does not explicitly teach “a processing module configured to process the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point.”
Zhang further teaches further comprising: a processing module configured to process the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point ([0046]: “The robot applies glue to the product based on the received data, thus achieving automation by enabling the robot to apply glue without human instruction and adapt to the placement of the product”).
Regarding claim 20, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 7.
Polidor does not explicitly teach “processing the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point.”
Zhang further teaches further comprising: processing the target workpiece based on the target workpiece point ([0046]: “The robot applies glue to the product based on the received data, thus achieving automation by enabling the robot to apply glue without human instruction and adapt to the placement of the product”).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polidor et al. (US 2018/0247147 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2020/133873 A1), and in view of Wang (CN 110434671 A) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping).
Regarding claim 3, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 2.
Polidor and Zhang do not explicitly teach “wherein aligning the workpiece to the model comprises: determining a workpiece matrix for transforming the plurality of model contour points to the plurality of workpiece contour points based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points; and identifying the workpiece point comprises: determining the workpiece point based on the workpiece matrix and the model point.”
Wang further teaches wherein aligning the workpiece to the model comprises: determining a workpiece matrix for transforming the plurality of model contour points to the plurality of workpiece contour points based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points ([0015]: “Step 6: Calculate the pose deviation between the actual casting and the theoretical 3D model:
After matching the actual point cloud of the casting with the theoretical 3D point cloud data, calculate the rotation matrix and translation vector by using the coordinates of the corresponding feature points in the CNC machine tool coordinate system”); and
identifying the workpiece point comprises: determining the workpiece point based on the workpiece matrix and the model point ([0016]: “Step 7: Adjust the pose of the casting, determine the infeed position and number of machining passes on the CNC machine tool: Based on the pose deviation between the actual casting and the reference machining position obtained in Step 6, the casting is pose-transformed and adjusted to coincide with the reference machining pose of the theoretical 3D model”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Polidor to incorporate the teachings of Wang so as to include determining a workpiece matrix for transforming the plurality of model contour points to the plurality of workpiece contour points based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points; and identifying the workpiece point comprises: determining the workpiece point based on the workpiece matrix and the model point. Doing so would allow program parameters to be modified with the aim of automating operation (Wang, [0005]: “If the precise location and amount of material to be processed in the area to be processed of the casting change, the program commands and corresponding parameters need to be modified to ensure the accuracy of the processing. Because the precise location of the machining area of some workpieces and the machining parts vary from casting to casting, the program commands need to be rewritten for each part when using CNC machine tools for machining, and fully automated operation cannot be achieved”).
Regarding claim 12, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 11.
Polidor and Zhang do not explicitly teach “wherein the workpiece alignment module further comprises a matrix determination module configured to determine a workpiece matrix for transforming the plurality of model contour points to the plurality of workpiece contour points based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points; and wherein the workpiece identification module is further configured to determine the workpiece point based on the workpiece matrix and the model point.”
Wang further teaches wherein the workpiece alignment module further comprises a matrix determination module configured to determine a workpiece matrix for transforming the plurality of model contour points to the plurality of workpiece contour points based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points ([0015]: “Step 6: Calculate the pose deviation between the actual casting and the theoretical 3D model: After matching the actual point cloud of the casting with the theoretical 3D point cloud data, calculate the rotation matrix and translation vector by using the coordinates of the corresponding feature points in the CNC machine tool coordinate system”); and
wherein the workpiece identification module is further configured to determine the workpiece point based on the workpiece matrix and the model point ([0016]: “Step 7: Adjust the pose of the casting, determine the infeed position and number of machining passes on the CNC machine to: Based on the pose deviation between the actual casting and the reference machining position obtained in Step 6, the casting is pose-transformed and adjusted to coincide with the reference machining pose of the theoretical 3D model”).
The reasons to combine Wang into Polidor are the same as articulated in claim 3 above.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polidor et al. (US 2018/0247147 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2020/133873 A1), and in view of Cao et al. (CN 108274092 A) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping).
Regarding claim 4, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the method of claim 1.
Polidor and Zhang do not explicitly teach “wherein determining the workpiece point comprises: determining a model section of a model groove of the model based on the model point, the model groove being adapted to process the model; determining a workpiece section of a workpiece groove of the workpiece based on the plurality of workpiece contour points, the workpiece groove being adapted to process the workpiece; and determining the workpiece point based on an offset of a point in the workpiece section based on a positional relationship between the model section and the workpiece section.”
Cao further teaches wherein determining the workpiece point comprises: determining a model section of a model groove of the model based on the model point, the model groove being adapted to process the model ([0021]: “the bevel processing trajectory is extracted from the 3D model to obtain the coordinates of the bevel processing trajectory points”);
determining a workpiece section of a workpiece groove of the workpiece based on the plurality of workpiece contour points, the workpiece groove being adapted to process the workpiece ([0020]: “After image acquisition, the 3D camera transmits the acquired image information to the host computer, which processes the acquired image to build a surface point cloud model; after the surface point cloud model is built, it is ready for model matching”); and
determining the workpiece point based on an offset of a point in the workpiece section based on a positional relationship between the model section and the workpiece section ([0022]: “Based on the 3D model of the workpiece, the information of the beveling machining trajectory is extracted; based on the visual calibration results, the coordinates of the trajectory points are transformed to obtain the robot trajectory file containing the position information of the trajectory points”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Polidor to incorporate the teachings of Cao so as to include determining a model section of a model groove of the model based on the model point, the model groove being adapted to process the model; determining a workpiece section of a workpiece groove of the workpiece based on the plurality of workpiece contour points, the workpiece groove being adapted to process the workpiece; and determining the workpiece point based on an offset of a point in the workpiece section based on a positional relationship between the model section and the workpiece section. Doing so would allow 3D vision technology to be used to determine points in a groove with the aim of improving processing automation (Cao, [0005]: “By using 3D vision technology to scan the workpiece to be processed and then matching it with the model in the 3D drawing library corresponding to the beveling requirements, the robot can automatically generate the beveling cutting path for processing. This is expected to solve the problem of automatic cutting of irregular workpieces and irregular beveling, and improve the intelligence and automation of beveling cutting”).
Regarding claim 13, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Polidor and Zhang do not explicitly teach “a model section module configured to determine a model section of a model groove of the model based on the model point, the model groove being adapted to process the model; and a workpiece section module configured to determine a workpiece section of a workpiece groove of the workpiece based on the plurality of workpiece contour points, the workpiece groove being adapted to process the workpiece; and wherein the workpiece determination module is further configured to determine the workpiece point based on an offset of a point in the workpiece section based on a positional relationship between the model section and the workpiece section.”
Cao further teaches wherein the workpiece determination module comprises: a model section module configured to determine a model section of a model groove of the model based on the model point, the model groove being adapted to process the model ([0021]: “the bevel processing trajectory is extracted from the 3D model to obtain the coordinates of the bevel processing trajectory points”); and
a workpiece section module configured to determine a workpiece section of a workpiece groove of the workpiece based on the plurality of workpiece contour points, the workpiece groove being adapted to process the workpiece ([0020]: “After image acquisition, the 3D camera transmits the acquired image information to the host computer, which processes the acquired image to build a surface point cloud model; after the surface point cloud model is built, it is ready for model matching”); and
wherein the workpiece determination module is further configured to determine the workpiece point based on an offset of a point in the workpiece section based on a positional relationship between the model section and the workpiece section ([0022]: “Based on the 3D model of the workpiece, the information of the beveling machining trajectory is extracted; based on the visual calibration results, the coordinates of the trajectory points are transformed to obtain the robot trajectory file containing the position information of the trajectory points”).
The reasons to combine Cao into Polidor are the same as articulated in claim 4 above.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polidor et al. (US 2018/0247147 A1), in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2020/133873 A1), in view of Cao et al. (CN 108274092 A) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping), and in view of Seki et al. (US 4,961,150 A).
Regarding claim 5, Polidor in view of Zhang and Cao teaches the method of claim 4.
Polidor, Zhang, and Cao do not explicitly teach “determining a central point based on a model point and two model points immediately adjacent to the model point, the model point and the two model points being equidistant from the central point; determining a circle based on the central point and the model point and the two model points, a center of the circle being the central point; determining a tangent line of the model point with respect to the circle; and determining the model section at the model point based on the tangent line.”
Seki further teaches wherein determining the model section comprises: determining a central point based on a model point and two model points immediately adjacent to the model point, the model point and the two model points being equidistant from the central point; determining a circle based on the central point and the model point and the two model points, a center of the circle being the central point (Col. 1, Lines 66-69: “determining a circular arc passing through three discretely given consecutive points Pi-1, Pi, Pi+1”);
determining a tangent line of the model point with respect to the circle; and determining the model section at the model point based on the tangent line (Col. 2, Lines 1-3: “determining a tangent vector of a tangent line contacting the circular arc at the central point Pi of these three points”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the method of Polidor in view of Zhang and Cao to incorporate the teachings of Seki so as to include determining a central point based on a model point and two model points immediately adjacent to the model point, the model point and the two model points being equidistant from the central point; determining a circle based on the central point and the model point and the two model points, a center of the circle being the central point; determining a tangent line of the model point with respect to the circle; and determining the model section at the model point based on the tangent line. Doing so would allow the location of points on a curve to be obtained in a simple manner (Seki, Col. 1, Lines 60-65: “an object of the present invention is to provide a curve generating method through which tangent vectors can be determined in a simple manner, thus making it possible to simply obtain curves smoothly connecting point sequences”).
Regarding claim 14, Polidor in view of Zhang and Cao teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
Polidor, Zhang, and Cao do not explicitly teach “a point determination module configured to determine a central point based on a model point and two model points immediately adjacent to the model point, the model point and the two model points being equidistant from the central point; a circle determination module configured to determine a circle based on the central point and the model point and the two model points, a center of the circle being the central point; a tangent determination module configured to determine a tangent line of the model point with respect to the circle; and wherein the model section module is configured to determine the model section at the model point based on the tangent line.”
Seki further teaches wherein the model section module comprises: a point determination module configured to determine a central point based on a model point and two model points immediately adjacent to the model point, the model point and the two model points being equidistant from the central point; a circle determination module configured to determine a circle based on the central point and the model point and the two model points, a center of the circle being the central point (Col. 1, Lines 66-69: “determining a circular arc passing through three discretely given consecutive points Pi-1, Pi, Pi+1”);
a tangent determination module configured to determine a tangent line of the model point with respect to the circle; and wherein the model section module is configured to determine the model section at the model point based on the tangent line (Col. 2, Lines 1-3: “determining a tangent vector of a tangent line contacting the circular arc at the central point Pi of these three points”).
The reasons to combine Seki into Polidor in view of Zhang and Cao are the same as articulated in claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Magdalena Kossek whose telephone number is (571)272-5603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Robert Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.
/M.I.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
