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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited elements of the claim, “a specified target pose of a reference robot”, “a blending set”, “a blending pose of the robot reference ”, “a successive movement set” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant is respectfully requested to identify these rejected elements of the claims in the in the submitted drawings. Examiner has combed through all the drawings and can’t identify these elements. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites several terms and phrase that have no meaning or explanation provided therein.
The specification recites the following:
“For example, using the movement sets PTP PO
LINP1
LIN P2
a robot path can be programmed to travel from the TCP pose PO approached by unsynchronized axle adjustments on a straight line in the working space into pose P1, and from this to travel on a straight line in the working space into pose P2, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Since the target pose P1 of the movement set LINP1 forms the starting pose of its successive movement set LIN P2, a problem arises, for example, when different orientations of the TCP are desired on the straight lines [P0; P1] and [P1; P2], for example in order to align a tool stepwise perpendicular to a machining surface or the like. In this case, the orientation would have to be correspondingly switched after traversing the straight lines [PO; P1j. …”
It is not clear what are the meanings of these abbreviations, emphasis added. As an example “LINP1” is referred to a movement set. Also “LIN P2” is referred to as a movement set. These do not appear to make grammatical sense since the phrase is incomplete, a set is made of at least two items, but “LINP1” is only one item for example. What is the relation between PTP PO, LINP1, LINP2?. If these form a set then they form a movement set of what….? Is it a movement set of wheels of the robot, a movement set of hands, a movement set of legs, a set movement set of joints of the robot, etc?
Furthermore, the specification recites the following:
“….of the robot according to one embodiment of the present invention, one of these movement sets or multiple these movement sets (in each case) is a grinding set for which (in each case):
- a grinding pose as a virtual starting pose for a successive movement set, …”
It is not clear what all is meant by and encompassed by grinding or is being ground in reference to a “griding set…” or “a griding pose,,,”
Further, the specification recites the following:
“in one embodiment, in a further development by parameterizing the distance dimension, a mandatory traversing of the grinding pose can be specified; in a further development, a mandatory traversing of the grinding pose will be or is specified for the or one or more of the grinding sets (in particular by corresponding parameterization). This can be particularly advantageous, for example, for painting paths or the like in order to ensure that desired workpiece regions are painted.
Additionally or alternatively, in one embodiment, in a further development by corresponding parameterization, in particular of the distance dimension, a non- mandatory traversing of the grinding pose can be specified; in a further development, a mandatory traversing of the grinding pose will be ….”
It is not clear what all is meant by and encompassed by, “a mandatory traversing….” as opposed to a “a non-mandatory traversing of…”
Furthermore, the specification recites the following:
“[0086] BLEND P11 with BLENDPARA
[0087] LIN P2
[0088] In this case, "BLEND P11 with BLENDPARA" is a grinding set with the grinding pose P11 and the parameters BLENDPARA.
[0089] In this embodiment, the grinding pose P11 comprises only the orientation of the target pose P2 of the successive movement set LIN P2; the position is therefore not changed or corresponds to the position of the target pose P1 of the preceding movement set LIN P1. Accordingly, for the successive movement set LIN P2 with P11, an orientation deviating from the target pose of the preceding movement set LIN P1 can be specified as a virtual starting pose, and a desired orientation can thereby be realized on a path section specified by the successive movement set.
[0090] With the parameters BLENDPARA, for example, a radius R1 around the grinding pose P11 will be or is parameterized, from which a position of the TCP is allowed to deviate from the path section specified by the preceding movement set LIN P1 and the path section specified by the successive movement set LIN P2.
[0091] In addition or alternatively, with the parameters BLENDPARA, for example, a radius R2 around the grinding pose P11 can be parameterized, from which an orientation of the TCP indicated by arrows in Fig. 2 may deviate from the “
It is not clear what all is meant by and encompassed by the abbreviations, emphasis added as underlined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-33 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.
The terms in claim 16 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. As an example the terms, “parametrizing….”, “a blending set”, “a blending pose as a virtual starting pose” are not defined in the claim or the specification. The disclosure does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no such phrase as “a blending set”, “a blending pose as a virtual starting pose” in the specification. Not even once does the specification recite the above phrases. The specification recites the word, “set” all the specification, but the above rejected phrases are not recited in the specification.
Claim 16 further recites, “a specified target pose of a reference of the robot”, then again the claim recites, “a blending pose of the robot reference”, emphasis added. The claimed limitation is inconsistent. Applicant is requested to be consistent with the claim language. What is the meaning of, “a blending pose of the robot reference” or --“a blending pose of the reference of the robot --,? It is not clear based on applicant’s disclosure what is the “robot reference” or the “reference of the robot”. Applicant is requested to provide or explain the meaning thereof.
Claim 16 further recites, “at least one of the movement sets is a blending set” and then again claim 16 recites, “at least one blending set”. Applicant is requested to make a distinction between the two limitations.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim or for having similar deficiencies as the base claim.
Claims 25-32 each recites, “means for ……….”, etc. A claim limitation reciting, “means for……..” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As such applicant is requested to identify each recited structure, material that corresponds to the “means”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim or for having similar deficiencies as the base claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites, “actuating at least one drive of the robot according to the generated program such that the robot traverses the path in a real environment surrounding the robot.”
The specification is silent regarding the above limitation. There is no recitation of any actuation, actuator, motor, drive, driver, driving, or let alone, “actuating at least one drive of the robot according to the generated program…” as claimed.
This is new matter.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim or for having similar deficiencies as the base claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard (US Pub 2011/0012903) in view of Weinhofer (US 7180253 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Girard discloses a method for generating a robot program (computer software program in computer 105, 110, 120; fig. 1, etc; sec 0030, 0031-0033, 0066, 0123) for a robot to traverse a robot path (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0042-0044, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095), wherein the robot program includes multiple movement sets for specifying the path (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0042-0044, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095), wherein at least one of the movements sets has a specified target pose AS a reference FOR the robot (target or goal; sec 0044, 0066, 0076, 0089; figs. 6-9, 16), and wherein at least one of the movement sets is a blending set (figs. 6-9, 16; sec 0010, 0035, 0038, 0042-0044, 0063, 0095), the method comprising:
parameterizing (fig. 10); sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095) for at least THE blending set:
a blending pose OF THE ROBOT as a virtual starting pose (pose created in the computer software program in the computer 105, 110, 120; fig. 1, etc; sec 0030, 0031-0033, 0066, 0123) for a successive movement (figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
an approach OF THE ROBOT to a path section specified by the successive
movement (figs. 5-16; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); and
an approach OF THE ROBOT from a path section specified by a preceding
movement (figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); and
actuating the robot, according to the generated program such that the robot traverses the path in an environment surrounding the robot (figs. 5-16; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Girard discloses generating the program, but did not particularly recite, “at least one drive of the robot”.
However, Weinhofer teaches of generating a robot program (using programming interface; abstract; col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 5, lines 54 to col. 6, lines 67) for a robot to traverse a robot path (col. 1, lines 45 to col. 2, lines 40; col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 10, lines 58 to col. 11 lines 34), wherein the robot program includes multiple movement sets (multiple movement path sets, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, positions A, 92, B; figs. 3, 4, 25, 31; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) for specifying the path, wherein at least one of the movements sets has a specified target pose (position B; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) AS a reference FOR the robot, and wherein at least one of the movement sets is a blending set (88 blend 82 to 88; 90 blends 84 to 86; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5); the method comprising:
parameterizing (i.e. controlling, transforming parameters of coordinates, axis, cartesian, motion, paths, points; col. 7, lines 47col. 8, lines 61) for at least THE blending set:
a blending pose OF THE ROBOT as a virtual starting pose (pose A of robot is blended with 82, 88, 84 for successive moments; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) for a successive movement;
an approach OF THE ROBOT to a path section specified (robot approaches path section 82 from starting pose A; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) by the successive movement; and
an approach OF THE ROBOT from a path section (robot approaches from path section 82 to path section 84; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) specified by a preceding movement; and
actuating A REAL robot (col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 5, lines 54 to col. 6, lines 67; col. 10, lines 58 to col. 11, lines 34), IN A REAL ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE REAL ROBOT, according to the generated program such that the REAL robot traverses A PATH IN THE REAL ENVIRONMENT ACCORDING TO the ROBOT path (col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 5, lines 54-64; col. 10, lines 58 to col. 11, lines 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Girard (US Pub 2011/0012903) as taught by Weinhofer such that the Girard device can be implemented in a real environment after the robot program of Girard has been generated in a virtual world and then again optimized modified in the virtual word and implemented again in the real world.
Regarding claim 17, Girard discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising parameterizing, for the at least one blending set, at least one of:
a distance from the blending pose of the blending set within which a position of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the successive movement set (figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from a pose of the successive movement set of the blending set within which a position of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the successive movement set (figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from the blending pose of the blending set within which an orientation of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the successive movement set (figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from a pose of the successive movement set of the blending set within which an orientation of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the successive movement set figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from the blending pose of the blending set within which a position of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the preceding movement set figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from a pose of the preceding movement set of the blending set within which a position of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the preceding movement set figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from the blending pose of the blending set within which an orientation of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the preceding movement set figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from a pose of the preceding movement set of the blending set within which an orientation of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the preceding movement set figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); or
a distance dimension of the reference relative to the blending pose of the blending set while traversing the blending set figs. 5-16; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 18, Girard discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising specifying at least one of:
a mandatory traversing of the blending pose figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a non-mandatory traversing of the blending pose figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
an impermissible traversing of the blending pose figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); or
a deposition direction relative to the blending pose figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 19, Girard discloses the method of claim 18, wherein at least one of:
specifying comprises parameterizing the distance dimension figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); or
specifying an impermissible traversing of the blending pose comprises specifying a minimum and/or maximum distance dimension relative to the blending pose figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 20, Girard discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising parameterizing at least one boundary surface for the at least one blending set figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 20, Girard discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising parameterizing at least one response to an unfulfillable restriction of the at least one blending set figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 22, Girard discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising parameterizing a speed for traversing the at least one blending set figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 23, Girard discloses the method of claim 16, wherein two or more of the movement sets are blending sets that are interconnected figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 24, Girard discloses a method for operating a robot, comprising:
obtaining a robot program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095) which is generated according to the method of claim 16; and
traversing a robot path with the robot by executing the robot program figs. 5-16 ; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 25, Girard discloses a system for generating a robot program (figs. 1, 5-16; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095) for a robot to traverse a robot path, wherein the robot program includes multiple movement sets for specifying the path (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095), wherein at least one of the movements sets has a specified target pose AS a reference FOR the robot (figs. 1, 5-16; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095), and wherein at least one of the movement sets is a blending set, the system comprising:
means for parameterizing (figs. 1, 10, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0051, 0066, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095, 0123), for the at least one blending set:
a blending pose OF THE ROBOT as a virtual starting pose for a successive movement set (figs. 1, 5-16; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
an approach OF THE ROBOT to a path section specified by said successive
movement set (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
an approach OF THE ROBOT from a path section specified by a preceding movement set (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); and
means for actuating the robot, according to the generated program such that the robot traverses the path in an environment surrounding the robot (figs. 5-16; sec 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Girard discloses generating the program, but did not particularly recite, “at least one drive of the robot”.
However, Weinhofer teaches of a system for generating a robot program (using programming interface; abstract; col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 5, lines 54 to col. 6, lines 67) for a robot to traverse a robot path (col. 1, lines 45 to col. 2, lines 40; col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 10, lines 58 to col. 11 lines 34), wherein the robot program includes multiple movement sets (multiple movement path sets, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, positions A, 92, B; figs. 3, 4, 25, 31; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) for specifying the path, wherein at least one of the movements sets has a specified target pose (position B; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) AS a reference FOR the robot, and wherein at least one of the movement sets is a blending set (88 blend 82 to 88; 90 blends 84 to 86; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5); the method comprising:
means for parameterizing (i.e. controlling, transforming parameters of coordinates, axis, cartesian, motion, paths, points; col. 7, lines 47col. 8, lines 61) for at least THE blending set:
a blending pose OF THE ROBOT as a virtual starting pose (pose A of robot is blended with 82, 88, 84 for successive moments; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) for a successive movement;
an approach OF THE ROBOT to a path section specified (robot approaches path section 82 from starting pose A; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) by the successive movement; and
an approach OF THE ROBOT from a path section (robot approaches from path section 82 to path section 84; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) specified by a preceding movement; and
means for actuating A REAL robot (col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 5, lines 54 to col. 6, lines 67; col. 10, lines 58 to col. 11, lines 34), IN A REAL ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE REAL ROBOT, according to the generated program such that the REAL robot traverses A PATH IN THE REAL ENVIRONMENT ACCORDING TO the ROBOT path (col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 5, lines 54-64; col. 10, lines 58 to col. 11, lines 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Girard (US Pub 2011/0012903) as taught by Weinhofer such that the Girard device can be implemented in a real environment after the robot program of Girard has been generated in a virtual world and then again optimized modified in the virtual word and implemented again in the real world.
Regarding claim 26, Girard discloses the system of claim 25, further comprising means for traversing a robot path with the robot by executing the robot program generated by the system program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 27, Girard discloses the system of claim 25, further comprising means for parameterizing, for the at least one blending set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095), at least one of:
a distance from the blending pose of the blending set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095) within which a position of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the successive movement set:
a distance from a pose of the successive movement set of the blending set within which a position of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the successive movement set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from the blending pose of the blending set within which an orientation of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the successive movement set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095):
a distance from a pose of the successive movement set of the blending set within which an orientation of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the successive movement set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from the blending pose of the blending set within which a position of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the preceding movement set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095):
a distance from a pose of the preceding movement set of the blending set within which a position of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the preceding movement set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a distance from the blending pose of the blending set within which an orientation of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the preceding movement set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095):
a distance from a pose of the preceding movement set of the blending set within which an orientation of the reference may deviate from a path section specified by the preceding movement set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); or
a distance dimension of the reference relative to the blending pose of the blending set while traversing the blending set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 28, Girard discloses the system of claim 25, further comprising means (figs. 1-5) for specifying at least one of:
a mandatory traversing of the blending pose program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
a non-mandatory traversing of the blending pose program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095);
an impermissible traversing of the blending pose program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); or
a deposition direction relative to the blending pose program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 29, Girard discloses the system of claim 28, wherein at least one of:
the means for specifying comprises means for parameterizing the distance dimension program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); or
the means for specifying an impermissible traversing of the blending pose comprises means for specifying a minimum and/or maximum distance dimension relative to the blending pose program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 30, Girard discloses the system of claim 25, further comprising means for parameterizing at least one boundary surface for the at least one blending set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 31, Girard discloses the system of claim 25, further comprising means for parameterizing at least one response to an unfulfillable restriction of the at least one blending set program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 32, Girard discloses the system of claim 25, further comprising at least one of:
means for parameterizing a speed for traversing the at least one blending set program (figs. 5, 10; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095); or
means for stringing together at least two blending sets program (figs. 11-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095).
Regarding claim 33, Girard discloses a computer program product comprising program code stored on a non- transitory, computer-readable storage medium, the program code configured to, when executed by a computer program (figs. 1, 5-16 ; sec 0030, 0031, 0066, 0123, 0051, 0076-0086, 0094, 0095), cause the computer to perform the method of claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant request’s that the term, “grinding” be changed to – blending --. That could be changed, but for now changes will not be granted because in the phrase, “a target pose of the robot reference” and “a blending pose of the robot reference”, “an approach of the robot reference to a path section” will not make grammatical sense. As such the request is respectfully denied.
Next, the applicant argues that the notations in the claims are common. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The notations are not common across the board. BLENDPARA is not a commonly known abbreviation. A quick search on many databases don’t disclose a meaning for the abbreviation. It is only applicant’s disclosure that uses such abbreviation, “BLENDPARA”. See for example applicant’s disclosure:
[[0083] FIG. 2 illustrates a robot path which will be or is programmed according to one embodiment of the present invention, for example by the movement sets:
[0084] PTP P0
[0085] LIN P1
[0086] BLEND P11 with BLENDPARA
[0087] LIN P2
[0088] In this case, “BLEND P11 with BLENDPARA” is a grinding set with the grinding pose P11 and the parameters BLENDPARA.]
Respectfully, the disclosure makes no sense if these are commands as argued by applicant. How is command PTP P0 different from LIN P1, BLEND P11 with BLENDPARA, etc. What do they command as an example?
The term “parametrizing” is a term that has a broad meaning and could be used to mean different things in different contexts. Applicant is requested to provide their own meaning thereof and how it pertains to the invention and how the applicant is implementing the meaning of the term.
Next, applicant’s cited prior art discloses blend or blending. These terms are common. But the cited prior art is silent regarding applicant’s abbreviations. In addition, the cited prior art has not date. Please provide the prior art in a the proper USPTO form so that it can be formerly considered.
Next, applicant argues that the prior art, Girard does not disclose generating robot programs for a real robot to traverse a path in a real environment. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant also does not address or disclose anything associated with generating robot programs for a real robot and actuating a drive of the real robot for the real robot to traverse a path in a real environment.
The examiner respectfully submits that:
Girard discloses generating the program, but did not particularly recite, “at least one drive of the robot”.
However, Weinhofer teaches of generating a robot program (using programming interface; abstract; col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 5, lines 54 to col. 6, lines 67) for a robot to traverse a robot path (col. 1, lines 45 to col. 2, lines 40; col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 10, lines 58 to col. 11 lines 34), wherein the robot program includes multiple movement sets (multiple movement path sets, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, positions A, 92, B; figs. 3, 4, 25, 31; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) for specifying the path, wherein at least one of the movements sets has a specified target pose (position B; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) AS a reference FOR the robot, and wherein at least one of the movement sets is a blending set (88 blend 82 to 88; 90 blends 84 to 86; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5); the method comprising:
parameterizing (i.e. controlling, transforming parameters of coordinates, axis, cartesian, motion, paths, points; col. 7, lines 47col. 8, lines 61) for at least THE blending set:
a blending pose OF THE ROBOT as a virtual starting pose (pose A of robot is blended with 82, 88, 84 for successive moments; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) for a successive movement;
an approach OF THE ROBOT to a path section specified (robot approaches path section 82 from starting pose A; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) by the successive movement; and
an approach OF THE ROBOT from a path section (robot approaches from path section 82 to path section 84; fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18 to col. 10, line 5) specified by a preceding movement; and
actuating A REAL robot (col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 5, lines 54 to col. 6, lines 67; col. 10, lines 58 to col. 11, lines 34), IN A REAL ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE REAL ROBOT, according to the generated program such that the REAL robot traverses A PATH IN THE REAL ENVIRONMENT ACCORDING TO the ROBOT path (col. 4, lines 8-19; col. 5, lines 54-64; col. 10, lines 58 to col. 11, lines 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Girard (US Pub 2011/0012903) as taught by Weinhofer such that the Girard device can be implemented in a real environment after the robot program of Girard has been generated in a virtual world and then again optimized modified in the virtual word and implemented again in the real world.
The rejections are proper, they therefore stand.
Conclusion
The prior art (US 20170354393 A1, US 20100131113 A1, Lawrence (US 20170297198 A1; JP 2022523157 A) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657