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 non-final.
Claims 1-20 filed on 10/10/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 10/10/2023 and 01/02/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/10/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 10/10/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 14 recite the limitation “determine a tangent of the model point.” It is unclear if this refers to a tangent line, a tangent plane, or a tangent vector.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim 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 15, 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 15, 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 17 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 § 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 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a process. Claims 10-16 are directed to a machine or an article of manufacture.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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 (Mental process – determining a workpiece point based on a plurality of points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
acquiring a plurality of model contour points representing a contour of a model associated with the workpiece and a model point representing a position for processing the model; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
acquiring a plurality of workpiece contour points representing a contour of the workpiece; ((Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
acquiring a plurality of model contour points representing a contour of a model associated with the workpiece and a model point representing a position for processing the model; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
acquiring a plurality of workpiece contour points representing a contour of the workpiece; ((Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
identifying the workpiece point based on a point corresponding to the model point that is mapped to a contour of the aligned workpiece; (Mental process – identifying a workpiece point is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
aligning the workpiece to the model based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
aligning the workpiece to the model based on the plurality of model contour points and the plurality of workpiece contour points; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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; (Mental process – determining a workpiece matrix for transforming the plurality of model contour points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
identifying the workpiece point comprises: determining the workpiece point based on the workpiece matrix and the model point (Mental process – determining a workpiece points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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; (Mental process – determining a section of a model groove is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
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; (Mental process – determining a section of a workpiece groove is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
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 (Mental process – determining a workpiece point is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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; (Mental process – determining a central point based on a model point and two model points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
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; (Mental process – determining a circle based on a central point, a model point, and two model points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining a tangent of the model point with respect to the circle; (Mental process – determining a tangent of the model point is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining the model section at the model point based on the tangent (Mental process – determining a model section based on the tangent is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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 (Mental process – determining a target workpiece point is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the workpiece is a sample workpiece representing an ideal workpiece based on the model; and the method further comprises (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
acquiring a plurality of target workpiece contour points representing a contour of a target workpiece that is to be processed; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the workpiece is a sample workpiece representing an ideal workpiece based on the model; and the method further comprises (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
acquiring a plurality of target workpiece contour points representing a contour of a target workpiece that is to be processed; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
receiving an input representing an offset for adjusting the workpiece point; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
adjusting the target workpiece point based on the input (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
receiving an input representing an offset for adjusting the workpiece point; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
adjusting the target workpiece point based on the input (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 10:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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 (Mental process – determining a workpiece point based on a plurality of points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
a model acquisition module configured to acquire a plurality of model contour points representing a contour of a model associated with the workpiece and a model point representing a position for processing the model; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
a workpiece acquisition module configured to acquire a plurality of workpiece contour points representing a contour of the workpiece; ((Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a model acquisition module configured to acquire a plurality of model contour points representing a contour of a model associated with the workpiece and a model point representing a position for processing the model; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
a workpiece acquisition module configured to acquire a plurality of workpiece contour points representing a contour of the workpiece; ((Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 11:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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; (Mental process – identifying a workpiece point is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
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; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
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; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 12:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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; (Mental process – determining a workpiece matrix for transforming the plurality of model contour points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
wherein the workpiece identification module is further configured to determine the workpiece point based on the workpiece matrix and the model point (Mental process – determining a workpiece points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 13:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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; (Mental process – determining a section of a model groove is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
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; (Mental process – determining a section of a workpiece groove is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
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 (Mental process – determining a workpiece point is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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; (Mental process – determining a central point based on a model point and two model points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
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; (Mental process – determining a circle based on a central point, a model point, and two model points is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
a tangent determination module configured to determine a tangent of the model point with respect to the circle; (Mental process – determining a tangent of the model point is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
wherein the model section module is configured to determine the model section at the model point based on the tangent (Mental process – determining a model section based on the tangent is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 15:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
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 (Mental process – determining a target workpiece point is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the workpiece is a sample workpiece representing an ideal workpiece based on the model; and the apparatus further comprises (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
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; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the workpiece is a sample workpiece representing an ideal workpiece based on the model; and the apparatus further comprises (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
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; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 16:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
an input reception module configured to receive an input representing an offset for adjusting the workpiece point; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
an adjustment module configured to adjust the target workpiece point based on the input (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
an input reception module configured to receive an input representing an offset for adjusting the workpiece point; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
an adjustment module configured to adjust the target workpiece point based on the input (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polidor et al. (US 2018/0247147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Polidor discloses 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”);
and 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”).
Regarding claim 2, Polidor discloses the method of claim 1.
Polidor further discloses 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 10, Polidor discloses 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”); and
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”).
Regarding claim 6, Polidor discloses the method of claim 1.
Polidor further discloses 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 method further comprises: 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”); and
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”).
Regarding claim 11, Polidor discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Polidor further discloses 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 15, Polidor discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Polidor further discloses 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”).
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 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 Wang (CN 110434671 A) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping, attached to this action).
Regarding claim 3, Polidor discloses the method of claim 2.
Polidor does 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 discloses the apparatus of claim 11.
Polidor does 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 7-9 and 16-20 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 7, Polidor discloses the method of claim 6.
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]”).
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 receiving an input representing an offset for adjusting the workpiece point; and adjusting the target workpiece point based on the input. Doing so would allow positions of workpieces to be automatically adjusted with the aim of reducing production cost (Zhang, [0047]: “The method of this invention realizes the automatic calculation of the glue application trajectory of the robot without manual teaching, which saves labor costs, shortens the overall production cycle, improves production efficiency, and makes process changes quick and convenient… 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”).
Regarding claim 8, Polidor discloses the method of claim 6.
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”).
The reasons to combine Zhang into Polidor are the same as articulated in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 9, Polidor discloses 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”).
The reasons to combine Zhang into Polidor are the same as articulated in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, Polidor teaches the apparatus of claim 15,
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
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.”
The reasons to combine Zhang into Polidor are the same as articulated in claim 7 above.
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 17, Polidor in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 15.
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”).
The reasons to combine Zhang into Polidor are the same as articulated in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, Polidor 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”).
The reasons to combine Zhang into Polidor are the same as articulated in claim 7 above.
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 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 Cao et al. (CN 108274092 A) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping, attached to this action).
Regarding claim 4, Polidor discloses the method of claim 1.
Polidor does 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 discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Polidor does 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 Cao et al. (CN 108274092 A) (Note: a machine translation is used for mapping, attached to this action), and in view of Seki et al. (US 4,961,150 A).
Regarding claim 5, Polidor in view of Cao teaches the method of claim 4.
Polidor 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 of the model point with respect to the circle; and determining the model section at the model point based on the tangent.”
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 of the model point with respect to the circle; and determining the model section at the model point based on the tangent (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 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 of the model point with respect to the circle; and determining the model section at the model point based on the tangent. 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 Cao teaches the apparatus of claim 13.
Polidor 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 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.”
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 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 (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 Cao are the same as articulated in claim 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0259180 A1: Optically acquiring workpiece geometry and comparing it to a stored geometry model to compute a transformation matrix
US 2020/0114449 A1: Generating robotic welding paths from scanned 3D point cloud data
US 2019/0295266 A1: Graph matching and registration between 3D point clouds
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 at (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