DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-24 and 28-31 as originally filed are currently pending and have been considered as follows:
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the
presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of
which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
“FIG. 2 shows a schematic isometric view of a wind turbine 10” in ¶78 should read “FIG. 2 shows a schematic isometric view of a wind turbine blade 10”
“A leading edge 14 and a trailing edge 16 extend between the root end 12 and the tip end 14.” In ¶78 should read “A leading edge 14 and a trailing edge 16 extend between the root end 12 and the tip end 11.
“cross-sectional shape existing from root 12 to tip 14” in ¶79 should read “cross-sectional shape existing from root 12 to tip 11”
“outer surface 23 of the wind turbine 10” in ¶85 should read “outer surface 23 of the wind turbine blade 10”
“three rigid links 32a, 32b, 32c, 32d” in ¶94 should read “three rigid links 32a, 32b, 32c”
“The image processor 83 may be configured to” in ¶101 should read “The image processor 82 may be configured to”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“projecting a image onto the workpiece” in Claim 30 should read “projecting an image onto the workpiece”
“first position control signal” in Claim 30 should read “first relative position control signal”
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.
Claim(s) 10, 16, 22-24, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 & 16 recite the limitation "relative tool position controller” without proper antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the limitation “relative tool position controller” is not previously referred to in the previous claims.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "to the one or more motor controllers” without proper antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the limitation “the one or more motor controllers” is not previously referred to in the previous claims.
Dependent claim(s) 23-24 are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 22 and therefore incorporate the antecedent basis issues of claim 22.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “A computer program as claimed in claim 28, further comprising a force sensor located between the tool and the robotic arm...” is recited in Claim 29. As drafted, the program itself “comprises” the sensor, which is inconsistent, because a computer program does not literally “comprise a force sensor located between the tool and the robotic arm.” The rest of the clause then shifts back to the operation including determining force from the sensor. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "determining a magnitude of the force vector” without proper antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the limitation “the force vector” is not previously referred to in the previous claims.
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.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
28. A computer program comprising instructions which, when executed, cause a robotic arm to execute an operation controlling a position of a tool relative to a workpiece, wherein the tool is mounted on the robotic arm, and wherein the tool position is manipulable by a plurality of motors controlled by one or more motor controllers, the operation, comprising:
projecting an image onto the workpiece from a projector mounted on the tool or on the robotic arm, wherein the projected image comprises a line;
detecting the projected image using a camera mounted on the tool or on the robotic arm;
using the detected image to determine a relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece; and
providing the determined relative position as an input to a relative position controller, wherein the relative position controller is configured to:
compare the determined relative position of the tool to a predetermined value, or to a range of predetermined values; and
if the determined relative position of the tool is not equal to the predetermined value, or is not within the range of predetermined values, issue a relative position control signal to a tool position controller, wherein the relative position control signal comprises an instruction to move the tool to a new position in which the relative position of the tool is closer to the predetermined value, or closer to the range of predetermined values; or
if the determined relative position of the tool is equal to the predetermined value, or is within the range of predetermined values, issue a relative position control signal to the tool position controller, wherein the relative position control signal comprises an instruction to maintain the tool in its current relative position,
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the relative position control signal to determine a motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers.
In particular, claim 28 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because claim 13 is directed to a “computer program comprising instructions which,…”, i.e., a computer program per se (software per se) / mere information claimed as a product without any structural recitations or physical/tangible embodiment.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “computer program comprising instructions which,” is a set of instructions/code detached from any claimed storage medium or other physical article. As explained in MPEP 2106, products that do not have a physical or tangible form such as a “computer program per se (software per se) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations” - are not within a statutory category.
Accordingly, claim 28 fails Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis (Step 1: NO) and is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
Dependent claim(s) 29 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or generic additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 29 recite limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity as they are nominally or tangentially related to the invention and well-known. Therefore, dependent claim(s) 29 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 11-15, 17-19, 21-24, 28-31 iare rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Pub. No. 112571159) in view of Song (CN Pub. No. 108908120).
As per Claim 1, Liu discloses component polishing method based on visual detection, comprising:
controlling the position of a tool relative to a workpiece, wherein the tool is mounted on a robotic arm, and wherein the tool position is manipulable by a plurality of motors controlled by one or more motor controllers, (as per “The vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 equipped with grinding discs 20 are installed as a whole on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot, and the vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 are electrically connected to the system controller respectively” in ¶32, as per “An industrial robot, wherein a grinding device 10 is installed on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot” in ¶45, as per “The system controller is used to control the industrial robot to drive the grinding device to grind the surface of the component according to the preset grinding path, the angle between the grinding disc 20 and the surface of the component 40, and the grinding speed of the grinding disc 20; the grinding device 10, the industrial robot and the system controller are electrically connected.” in ¶46)
projecting an image onto the workpiece from a projector mounted on the tool or on the robotic arm, wherein the projected image comprises a line; (as per “The visual inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32, and an area array camera 33 (see Figure 1). During the polishing process of the polishing device 30 polishing the surface of the component, the first line laser 31 and the second line laser 32 are configured to project lasers perpendicularly onto the surface of the component, forming corresponding first laser projection lines 31a and second laser projection lines 32a on the surface of the component, respectively” in ¶34, as per “1. The vision inspection device 30 is relatively fixed in position with the polishing device 10. The vision inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32 and an area array camera 33. During the polishing of the component surface, the first line laser 31 and the second line laser 32 are configured to project the laser vertically onto the component surface and form corresponding first laser projection lines 31a and second laser projection lines 32a on the component surface, respectively” in ¶47, as per ¶26)
detecting the projected image using a camera mounted on the tool or on the robotic arm; (as per “visual inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32, and an area array camera 33 (see Figure 1)” in ¶34, as per “The first line laser 31, the second line laser 32, and the area array camera 33 are fixed on the mounting plate 35. The vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 are both mounted on a connecting plate 60, which is mounted on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot” in ¶48)
using the detected image to determine a relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33” in ¶34, as per “Based on the principle of optical triangulation, calculate the actual distance between the n area array cameras and the surface of the component when the grinding device is located at the n grinding positions corresponding to the n imaging position information” in ¶39)
providing the determined relative position as an input to a relative position controller, (as per “the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first and second laser projection lines in the area array camera” in Claim 1)
wherein the relative position controller is configured to compare the determined relative position of the tool to a predetermined value, or to a range of predetermined values; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33. If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device 10 to move so that the grinding disc grinds the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶34, as per “If the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other, the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc 20 is consistent with the preset tilt angle; otherwise, they are inconsistent” in ¶36)
if the determined relative position of the tool is not equal to the predetermined value, or is not within the range of predetermined values, issue a relative position control signal to a tool position controller, wherein the relative position control signal comprises an instruction to move the tool to a new position in which the relative position of the tool is closer to the predetermined value, or closer to the range of predetermined values; (as per “If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device to make the grinding disc grind the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶8, as per “If the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is inconsistent with the preset tilt angle, the system controller controls the industrial robot to move until the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle, that is, until the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other” in ¶36) or
if the determined relative position of the tool is equal to the predetermined value, or is within the range of predetermined values, issue a relative position control signal to the tool position controller, wherein the relative position control signal comprises an instruction to maintain the tool in its current relative position, (as per “the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component” in Claim 1, as per “If the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other, the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle;” in Claim 3)
Liu fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the relative position control signal to determine a motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers.
Song discloses of a robot grinding device and polishing process based on six-dimension force sensor and binocular vision, comprising:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the relative position control signal to determine a motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers. (as per “The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶28, as per “When it is detected that the tilt angle deviation between the end of the robotic arm and the grinding motor in the X and Y directions exceeds the set angle, wherein the set angle is preferably 3°, the position of the grinding motor will be compensated and corrected immediately according to formulas (2) and (3) to ensure that the grinding motor is basically kept in the vertical direction during the grinding process” in ¶80)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu further discloses:
wherein using the detected image to determine a relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece comprises determining a relative angular position between the tool and the workpiece, (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33. If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device 10 to move so that the grinding disc grinds the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶34, as per “The grinding tilt angle includes the pitch angle α of the grinding disc and the side tilt angle β of the grinding disc, as shown in Figure 3; the pitch angle α is the angle between the grinding disc 20 and the surface of the component 40; when the grinding disc 20 contacts the surface of the component, the line connecting the contact point between the grinding disc 20 and the surface of the component 40 and the center of the rotation axis 21 of the grinding disc is the side tilt axis 22, and the side tilt angle β is the rotation angle of the grinding disc 20 around the side tilt axis 22; during the grinding process, the system controller determines whether the actual grinding tilt angle between the grinding disc and the surface of the component is consistent with the preset grinding tilt angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31a and the second laser projection line 32a in the area array camera 33, including the consistency judgment of the side tilt angle of the grinding disc and the consistency judgment of the pitch angle of the grinding disc” in ¶35)
wherein the step of issuing the relative position control signal comprises issuing a relative position control signal comprising an instruction to bring the relative angular position closer to the predetermined value, or to the range of predetermined values. (as per “If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device 10 to move so that the grinding disc grinds the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶34, as per “If the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is inconsistent with the preset tilt angle, the system controller controls the industrial robot to move until the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle, that is, until the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other” in ¶36)
As per Claim 6, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu and further discloses wherein the relative position of the tool is determined relative to a specific feature of the tool. (as per “The first laser projection line is located at the contact edge between the polishing disc and the surface of the component” in Claim 1, as per “The axis of the lens assembly of the area array camera 33 forms an angle with the laser projection surfaces of the first line laser 31 and the second line laser 32. The first laser projection line 31a is located at the contact edge between the polishing disc 20 and the surface of the component” in ¶34)
As per Claim 11, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu further discloses comprising repeating the method until the determined relative position of the tool is equal to the predetermined value or is within the range of predetermined values. (as per “If the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is inconsistent with the preset tilt angle, the system controller controls the industrial robot to move until the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle, that is, until the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other” in ¶36, as per “Finally, determine whether the actual pitch angle between the grinding disc 20 and the component surface is consistent with the preset pitch angle; if not, the system controller controls the industrial robot to adjust the attitude of the grinding device until the actual pitch angle is the same as the preset pitch angle” in ¶41)
As per Claim 12, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu further discloses comprising determining the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece at a predetermined frequency. (as per “the system controller periodically acquires n imaging position information of the second laser projection line 32a in the area array camera; in specific implementation, the system controller can acquire one imaging position information of the second laser projection line 32a in the area array camera every fixed time unit, such as acquiring one imaging position information of the second laser projection line 32a in the area array camera every 100 milliseconds” in ¶38)
As per Claim 13, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein the projector is a laser projector. (as per “visual inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32, and an area array camera 33 (see Figure 1).” in ¶34, as per “The two line lasers of its visual inspection device are configured to project lasers perpendicularly onto the surface of the component, forming corresponding first and second laser projection lines on the component surface” in ¶26)
As per Claim 14, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu fails to expressly disclose wherein the camera is a digital camera and wherein the detected image is converted into a computer readable format.
See Claim 1 for teachings of Song. Song further discloses wherein the camera is a digital camera and wherein the detected image is converted into a computer readable format. (as per “ix-dimensional force sensor and binocular vision includes a robotic arm, a sensor mount, a six-dimensional force sensor, an industrial camera, a flexible connector, a motor mount, a grinding motor, and a dual-axis accelerometer” in ¶10, as per “Two industrial cameras will automatically collect image information of the surface of the part to be processed, and obtain the image depth information of the surface of the part to be processed according to the following formula” in ¶24, as per ¶26)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 15, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu fails to expressly disclose:
determining the magnitude of a force vector applied to the workpiece by the tool;
providing the determined magnitude of the force vector as an input to a force controller, wherein the force controller is configured to:
compare the determined magnitude of the force vector to a predetermined value, or to a range of predetermined values; and
if the determined magnitude of the force vector is not equal to the predetermined value, or is not within the range of predetermined values, issue a force control signal, wherein the force control signal comprises an instruction to bring the magnitude of the force closer to the predetermined value, or to the range of predetermined values;
or if the determined magnitude of the force vector is equal to the predetermined value, or is within the range of predetermined values, issue a force control signal, wherein the force control signal comprises an instruction to maintain the tool in its current relative position,
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the force control signal to determine the motor control signal.
See Claim 1 for teachings of Song. Song further discloses:
determining the magnitude of a force vector applied to the workpiece by the tool; (as per “The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶28, as per “The grinding motor and the six-dimensional force sensor are on the same axis, which can accurately measure the force during the grinding process” in ¶41)
providing the determined magnitude of the force vector as an input to a force controller, (as per “Step 3, PI control grinding: The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶79)
wherein the force controller is configured to:
compare the determined magnitude of the force vector to a predetermined value, or to a range of predetermined values; (as per “The PI closed-loop control is formed by the feedback of force and torque from the six dimensional force sensor, which controls the grinding motor to perform constant force grinding on the grinding area” in ¶44, as per “Step 2, Grinding Timing Control: Based on the depth point cloud map generated in Step 1, analyze the unevenness of the surface of the part to be processed, and control the robotic arm to make the grinding head of the grinding motor approach the edge of the grinding area at a speed less than V<sub>2</sub>; when the six-dimensional force sensor senses the sudden change in force in the Z-axis direction, immediately stop the movement in the Z-axis direction and start the transverse grinding of the grinding area” in ¶2)
if the determined magnitude of the force vector is not equal to the predetermined value, or is not within the range of predetermined values, issue a force control signal, wherein the force control signal comprises an instruction to bring the magnitude of the force closer to the predetermined value, or to the range of predetermined values; (as per “The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶28, as per “The PI closed-loop control is formed by the feedback of force and torque from the six dimensional force sensor, which controls the grinding motor to perform constant force grinding on the grinding area. At the same time, the position compensation of the grinding head displacement during the grinding process can be performed by the dual-axis accelerometer, so as to achieve good grinding effect and grinding efficiency” in ¶44)
or if the determined magnitude of the force vector is equal to the predetermined value, or is within the range of predetermined values, issue a force control signal, wherein the force control signal comprises an instruction to maintain the tool in its current relative position, (as per “PI control grinding: The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶79)
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the force control signal to determine the motor control signal. (as per “The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶79)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 17, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Liu further discloses repeating the method until the determined magnitude of the force vector is equal to the predetermined value or is within the range of predetermined values. (as per “If the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is inconsistent with the preset tilt angle, the system controller controls the industrial robot to move until the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle, that is, until the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other” in ¶36, as per “Finally, determine whether the actual pitch angle between the grinding disc 20 and the component surface is consistent with the preset pitch angle; if not, the system controller controls the industrial robot to adjust the attitude of the grinding device until the actual pitch angle is the same as the preset pitch angle” in ¶41)
As per Claim 18, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Liu further discloses determining the magnitude of the force vector at a predetermined frequency. (as per “the system controller periodically acquires n imaging position information of the second laser projection line 32a in the area array camera; in specific implementation, the system controller can acquire one imaging position information of the second laser projection line 32a in the area array camera every fixed time unit, such as acquiring one imaging position information of the second laser projection line 32a in the area array camera every 100 milliseconds” in ¶38)
As per Claim 19, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Liu fails to expressly disclose wherein the tool position controller is configured to prohibit movement of the tool towards the workpiece if the determined magnitude of the force vector is greater than or equal to a predetermined maximum.
See Claim 15 for teachings of Song. Song further discloses wherein the tool position controller is configured to prohibit movement of the tool towards the workpiece if the determined magnitude of the force vector is greater than or equal to a predetermined maximum. (as per “Step 2, Grinding Timing Control: Based on the depth point cloud map generated in Step 1, analyze the unevenness of the surface of the part to be processed, and control the robotic arm to make the grinding head of the grinding motor approach the edge of the grinding area at a speed less than V<sub>2</sub>; when the six-dimensional force sensor senses the sudden change in force in the Z-axis direction, immediately stop the movement in the Z-axis direction and start the transverse grinding of the grinding area” in ¶27, as per “Step 3, PI control grinding: The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶28)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 21, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Liu fails to expressly disclose wherein determining the magnitude of the force vector comprises obtaining a force measurement from a force sensor located between the tool and the robotic arm.
See Claim 15 for teachings of Song. Song further discloses wherein determining the magnitude of the force vector comprises obtaining a force measurement from a force sensor located between the tool and the robotic arm. (as per “six-dimensional force sensor and binocular vision includes a robotic arm, a sensor mount, a six-dimensional force sensor, an industrial camera, a flexible connector, a motor mount, a grinding motor, and a dual-axis accelerometer” in ¶10, as per “The six-dimensional force sensor is fixedly connected to the end joint of the robotic arm via a sensor mounting base” in Claim 1)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 22, Liu discloses component polishing method based on visual detection, comprising:
a tool mounted on the robotic arm; (as per “The vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 equipped with grinding discs 20 are installed as a whole on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot, and the vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 are electrically connected to the system controller respectively” in ¶32)
a plurality of motors configured to manipulate the robotic arm and/or the tool; (as per “the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device 10 to move so that the grinding disc grinds the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶34)
a projector mounted on the tool or on the robotic arm; a camera mounted on the tool or on the robotic arm; (as per “a vision inspection device 30 installed on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot, as shown in Figure 1. The vision inspection device 30 is relatively fixed in position with the polishing device 10. The vision inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32 and an area array camera 33” in ¶47)
a controller configured to perform an operation of controlling the position of the tool relative to a workpiece, (as per “The system controller is used to control the industrial robot to drive the grinding device to grind the surface of the component according to the preset grinding path, the angle between the grinding disc and the surface of the component…” in Claim 6)
projecting an image onto the workpiece from the projector, wherein the projected image comprises a line; (as per “The visual inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32, and an area array camera 33 (see Figure 1). During the polishing process of the polishing device 30 polishing the surface of the component, the first line laser 31 and the second line laser 32 are configured to project lasers perpendicularly onto the surface of the component, forming corresponding first laser projection lines 31a and second laser projection lines 32a on the surface of the component, respectively” in ¶34, as per “1. The vision inspection device 30 is relatively fixed in position with the polishing device 10. The vision inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32 and an area array camera 33. During the polishing of the component surface, the first line laser 31 and the second line laser 32 are configured to project the laser vertically onto the component surface and form corresponding first laser projection lines 31a and second laser projection lines 32a on the component surface, respectively” in ¶47, as per ¶26)
detecting the projected image using the camera; (as per “visual inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32, and an area array camera 33 (see Figure 1)” in ¶34, as per “The first line laser 31, the second line laser 32, and the area array camera 33 are fixed on the mounting plate 35. The vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 are both mounted on a connecting plate 60, which is mounted on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot” in ¶48)
using the detected image to determine a relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33” in ¶34, as per “Based on the principle of optical triangulation, calculate the actual distance between the n area array cameras and the surface of the component when the grinding device is located at the n grinding positions corresponding to the n imaging position information” in ¶39)
providing the determined relative position as an input to a relative position controller, (as per “the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first and second laser projection lines in the area array camera” in Claim 1)
wherein the relative position controller is configured to compare the determined relative position of the tool to a predetermined value, or to a range of predetermined values; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33. If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device 10 to move so that the grinding disc grinds the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶34, as per “If the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other, the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc 20 is consistent with the preset tilt angle; otherwise, they are inconsistent” in ¶36)
if the determined relative position of the tool is not equal to the predetermined value, or is not within the range of predetermined values, issue a relative position control signal to a tool position controller, wherein the relative position control signal comprises an instruction to move the tool to a new position in which the relative position of the tool is closer to the predetermined value, or closer to the range of predetermined values; (as per “If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device to make the grinding disc grind the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶8, as per “If the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is inconsistent with the preset tilt angle, the system controller controls the industrial robot to move until the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle, that is, until the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other” in ¶36)
if the determined relative position of the tool is equal to the predetermined value, or is within the range of predetermined values, issue a relative position control signal to the tool position controller, wherein the relative position control signal comprises an instruction to maintain the tool in its current relative position, (as per “the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component” in Claim 1, as per “If the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other, the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle;” in Claim 3)
Liu fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the relative position control signal to determine a motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers.
Song discloses of a robot grinding device and polishing process based on six-dimension force sensor and binocular vision, comprising:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the relative position control signal to determine a motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers. (as per “The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶28, as per “When it is detected that the tilt angle deviation between the end of the robotic arm and the grinding motor in the X and Y directions exceeds the set angle, wherein the set angle is preferably 3°, the position of the grinding motor will be compensated and corrected immediately according to formulas (2) and (3) to ensure that the grinding motor is basically kept in the vertical direction during the grinding process” in ¶80)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 23, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Liu fails to expressly disclose a force sensor located between the tool and the robotic arm.
See Claim 22 for teachings of Song. Song further discloses a force sensor located between the tool and the robotic arm. (as per “six-dimensional force sensor and binocular vision includes a robotic arm, a sensor mount, a six-dimensional force sensor, an industrial camera, a flexible connector, a motor mount, a grinding motor, and a dual-axis accelerometer” in ¶10, as per “The six-dimensional force sensor is fixedly connected to the end joint of the robotic arm via a sensor mounting base” in ¶11)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 24, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Liu further discloses wherein the tool comprises a non-destructive testing device, a coating applicator, an abrasive tool, or a polishing tool. (as per “The vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 equipped with grinding discs 20 are installed as a whole on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot...” in ¶32, as per “A grinding device 10 is equipped with a grinding disc 20 for grinding the surface of a component” in ¶44, as per “the grinding device 10 is preferably an angle grinder” in ¶49).
As per Claim 28, Liu discloses component polishing method based on visual detection, comprising:
a computer program comprising instructions which, when executed, cause a robotic arm to execute an operation controlling a position of a tool relative to a workpiece, wherein the tool is mounted on the robotic arm, and wherein the tool position is manipulable by a plurality of motors controlled by one or more motor controllers, (as per “The vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 equipped with grinding discs 20 are installed as a whole on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot, and the vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 are electrically connected to the system controller respectively” in ¶32, as per “An industrial robot, wherein a grinding device 10 is installed on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot” in ¶45, as per “The system controller is used to control the industrial robot to drive the grinding device to grind the surface of the component according to the preset grinding path, the angle between the grinding disc 20 and the surface of the component 40, and the grinding speed of the grinding disc 20; the grinding device 10, the industrial robot and the system controller are electrically connected.” in ¶46)
projecting an image onto the workpiece from a projector mounted on the tool or on the robotic arm, wherein the projected image comprises a line; (as per “The visual inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32, and an area array camera 33 (see Figure 1). During the polishing process of the polishing device 30 polishing the surface of the component, the first line laser 31 and the second line laser 32 are configured to project lasers perpendicularly onto the surface of the component, forming corresponding first laser projection lines 31a and second laser projection lines 32a on the surface of the component, respectively” in ¶34, as per “1. The vision inspection device 30 is relatively fixed in position with the polishing device 10. The vision inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32 and an area array camera 33. During the polishing of the component surface, the first line laser 31 and the second line laser 32 are configured to project the laser vertically onto the component surface and form corresponding first laser projection lines 31a and second laser projection lines 32a on the component surface, respectively” in ¶47, as per ¶26)
detecting the projected image using a camera mounted on the tool or on the robotic arm; (as per “visual inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32, and an area array camera 33 (see Figure 1)” in ¶34, as per “The first line laser 31, the second line laser 32, and the area array camera 33 are fixed on the mounting plate 35. The vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 are both mounted on a connecting plate 60, which is mounted on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot” in ¶48)
using the detected image to determine a relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33” in ¶34, as per “Based on the principle of optical triangulation, calculate the actual distance between the n area array cameras and the surface of the component when the grinding device is located at the n grinding positions corresponding to the n imaging position information” in ¶39)
providing the determined relative position as an input to a relative position controller, (as per “the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first and second laser projection lines in the area array camera” in Claim 1)
wherein the relative position controller is configured to compare the determined relative position of the tool to a predetermined value, or to a range of predetermined values; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33. If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device 10 to move so that the grinding disc grinds the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶34, as per “If the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other, the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc 20 is consistent with the preset tilt angle; otherwise, they are inconsistent” in ¶36)
if the determined relative position of the tool is not equal to the predetermined value, or is not within the range of predetermined values, issue a relative position control signal to a tool position controller, wherein the relative position control signal comprises an instruction to move the tool to a new position in which the relative position of the tool is closer to the predetermined value, or closer to the range of predetermined values; (as per “If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device to make the grinding disc grind the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶8, as per “If the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is inconsistent with the preset tilt angle, the system controller controls the industrial robot to move until the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle, that is, until the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other” in ¶36)
if the determined relative position of the tool is equal to the predetermined value, or is within the range of predetermined values, issue a relative position control signal to the tool position controller, wherein the relative position control signal comprises an instruction to maintain the tool in its current relative position, (as per “the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component” in Claim 1, as per “If the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other, the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle;” in Claim 3)
Liu fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the relative position control signal to determine a motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers.
Song discloses of a robot grinding device and polishing process based on six-dimension force sensor and binocular vision, comprising:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the relative position control signal to determine a motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers. (as per “The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶28, as per “When it is detected that the tilt angle deviation between the end of the robotic arm and the grinding motor in the X and Y directions exceeds the set angle, wherein the set angle is preferably 3°, the position of the grinding motor will be compensated and corrected immediately according to formulas (2) and (3) to ensure that the grinding motor is basically kept in the vertical direction during the grinding process” in ¶80)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 29, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 28. Liu fails to expressly disclose a force sensor located between the tool and the robotic arm and wherein the operation further comprises determining a magnitude of the force vector by obtaining a force measurement from the force sensor.
See Claim 28 for teachings of Song. Song further discloses a force sensor located between the tool and the robotic arm (as per “six-dimensional force sensor and binocular vision includes a robotic arm, a sensor mount, a six-dimensional force sensor, an industrial camera, a flexible connector, a motor mount, a grinding motor, and a dual-axis accelerometer” in ¶10, as per “The six-dimensional force sensor is fixedly connected to the end joint of the robotic arm via a sensor mounting base” in Claim 1) and wherein the operation further comprises determining a magnitude of the force vector by obtaining a force measurement from the force sensor. (as per “The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶28)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 30, Liu discloses component polishing method based on visual detection, comprising:
controlling the position of a tool relative to a workpiece, wherein the tool is mounted on a robotic arm, and wherein the tool position is manipulable by a plurality of motors controlled by one or more motor controllers, (as per “The vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 equipped with grinding discs 20 are installed as a whole on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot, and the vision inspection device 30 and the grinding device 10 are electrically connected to the system controller respectively” in ¶32, as per “An industrial robot, wherein a grinding device 10 is installed on the end effector 51 of the industrial robot” in ¶45, as per “The system controller is used to control the industrial robot to drive the grinding device to grind the surface of the component according to the preset grinding path, the angle between the grinding disc 20 and the surface of the component 40, and the grinding speed of the grinding disc 20; the grinding device 10, the industrial robot and the system controller are electrically connected.” in ¶46)
projecting a image onto the workpiece from a projector, wherein the image comprises a line; (as per “The visual inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32, and an area array camera 33 (see Figure 1). During the polishing process of the polishing device 30 polishing the surface of the component, the first line laser 31 and the second line laser 32 are configured to project lasers perpendicularly onto the surface of the component, forming corresponding first laser projection lines 31a and second laser projection lines 32a on the surface of the component, respectively” in ¶34, as per “1. The vision inspection device 30 is relatively fixed in position with the polishing device 10. The vision inspection device 30 includes a first line laser 31, a second line laser 32 and an area array camera 33. During the polishing of the component surface, the first line laser 31 and the second line laser 32 are configured to project the laser vertically onto the component surface and form corresponding first laser projection lines 31a and second laser projection lines 32a on the component surface, respectively” in ¶47, as per ¶26)
detecting the image using a camera; (as per “, the system controller collects the images of the first laser projection line 31a and the second laser projection line 32a in the area array camera 33 in real time” in ¶36)
using the image to determine a first relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33” in ¶34, as per “Based on the principle of optical triangulation, calculate the actual distance between the n area array cameras and the surface of the component when the grinding device is located at the n grinding positions corresponding to the n imaging position information” in ¶39)
providing the first relative position as an input to a relative position controller, (as per “the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first and second laser projection lines in the area array camera” in Claim 1)
wherein the relative position controller is configured to compare the first relative position of the tool to a predetermined value or a range of predetermined values; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33. If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device 10 to move so that the grinding disc grinds the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶34, as per “If the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other, the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc 20 is consistent with the preset tilt angle; otherwise, they are inconsistent” in ¶36)
upon determining that the first relative position of the tool is not equal to the predetermined value, or is not within the range of predetermined values, issue a first relative position control signal to a tool position controller, wherein the first position control signal comprises an instruction to move the tool to a new position in which the relative position of the tool is closer to the predetermined value, or closer to the range of predetermined values; (as per “If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device to make the grinding disc grind the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶8, as per “If the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is inconsistent with the preset tilt angle, the system controller controls the industrial robot to move until the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle, that is, until the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other” in ¶36)
Liu fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the first relative position control signal to determine a first motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the first motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers.
Song discloses of a robot grinding device and polishing process based on six-dimension force sensor and binocular vision, comprising:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the first relative position control signal to determine a first motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the first motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers. (as per “The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶28, as per “When it is detected that the tilt angle deviation between the end of the robotic arm and the grinding motor in the X and Y directions exceeds the set angle, wherein the set angle is preferably 3°, the position of the grinding motor will be compensated and corrected immediately according to formulas (2) and (3) to ensure that the grinding motor is basically kept in the vertical direction during the grinding process” in ¶80)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
As per Claim 31, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 30. Liu further discloses:
using the image to determine a second relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first and second laser projection lines in the area array camera. If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component” in Claim 1)
providing the second relative position as an input to a relative position controller, (as per “the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first and second laser projection lines in the area array camera” in Claim 1)
wherein the relative position controller is configured to compare the second relative position of the tool to the predetermined value or the range of predetermined values; (as per “During the grinding process, the system controller judges the consistency between the actual grinding angle of the grinding disc and the preset grinding angle based on the real-time imaging information of the first laser projection line 31 and the second laser projection line 32 in the area array camera 33. If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device 10 to move so that the grinding disc grinds the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶34, as per “If the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other, the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc 20 is consistent with the preset tilt angle; otherwise, they are inconsistent” in ¶36)
upon determining that the second relative position is equal to the predetermined value, or is within the range of predetermined values, issue a second relative position control signal to the tool position controller, wherein the second relative position control signal comprises an instruction to maintain the tool in its current relative position; (as per “If the actual grinding angle is consistent with the preset grinding angle, the grinding disc continues to grind the surface of the component. If they are inconsistent, the system controller controls the industrial robot to drive the grinding device 10 to move so that the grinding disc grinds the surface of the component at the predetermined grinding angle” in ¶34, as per “the first laser imaging line and the second laser imaging line are parallel to each other, then the actual tilt angle of the grinding disc is consistent with the preset tilt angle; otherwise, they are inconsistent” in ¶10)
Liu fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the second relative position control signal to determine a second motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the second motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers.
See Claim 30 for teachings of Song. Song further discloses:
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the second relative position control signal to determine a second motor control signal, and wherein the tool position controller is configured to issue the second motor control signal to the one or more motor controllers. (as per “The grinding area is ground using a constant force grinding method. The six-dimensional force sensor will acquire the force and torque information in real time during the grinding process and perform PI control on the feed of the grinding head” in ¶28, as per “When it is detected that the tilt angle deviation between the end of the robotic arm and the grinding motor in the X and Y directions exceeds the set angle, wherein the set angle is preferably 3°, the position of the grinding motor will be compensated and corrected immediately according to formulas (2) and (3) to ensure that the grinding motor is basically kept in the vertical direction during the grinding process” in ¶80)
In this way, Song operates to use binocular vision to acquire image information of the surface of the part to be processed, obtain image depth information, calculate and generate a depth point cloud map, and compensate and correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during the grinding process to improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29). Like Liu, Song is concerned with robotics and automated grinding of a workpiece.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the optical line-laser/camera robotic grinding control of Liu with the binocular-vision-based image depth acquisition and robotic-arm position compensation as taught by Song to enable another standard means of image-derived determination and correction of the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece based on detected surface condition and positional offset. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived depth information and position compensation to correct the grinding position of the robotic arm and grinding motor during grinding and improve processing quality (¶24, ¶27-¶29, ¶43-¶44).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Pub. No. 112571159) in view of Song (CN Pub. No. 108908120) in further view of Mori (US Pub. No. 4625285).
As per Claim 2, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu and Song fail to expressly disclose:
providing a computer readable master pathing model;
using the master pathing model to generate a master control signal;
providing the master control signal as an input to the tool position controller, wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the master control signal and the relative position control signal to determine the motor control signal.
Mori discloses of a robot controller with parallel processing of plural weighted position data which is combined at output to form a single command, comprising:
providing a computer readable master pathing model; (as per “a program memory section for storing programs and data; an instruction decoding section for decoding instructions in said programs stored in said program memory section; an instruction execution control section for executing instructions decoded by said instruction decoding section; and a velocity compensating section for outputting to each of said position control means a velocity and an acceleration for movement allowed in said robot controller” in Claim 12)
using the master pathing model to generate a master control signal; (as per “When an instruction in the program which has been decoded by the instruction decoding section 2 concerns the movement of the robot, the instruction execution control section 3 instructs the object position generating section 4 to produce movement object positions which are instructed by the movement instruction. The number of movement object positions varies depending on the kind of movement instruction” in C5L5-20, as per “The movement command forming means specifies formation of a plurality of movement object positions” in C3L20-25)
providing the master control signal as an input to the tool position controller, wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the master control signal and the relative position control signal to determine the motor control signal. (as per “a position compensating section for outputting an object position correcting command; an object position generating section receiving said object position correcting command from said position compensating section for correcting said object positions provided by said movement command forming means to produce a plurality of object position variables” in Claim 2, as per “a plurality of position control means for receiving said plurality of object position variables weighted by said compressing/enlarging means to perform speed control and position control in said movement; object position command means including a position command adding section for adding output signals of said plurality of position control means to output an object position command; and a drive section for outputting signals to drive said robot according to object position commands outputted by said object position command means” in Claim 1)
In this way, Mori operates to provide a robot controller which is provided with a plurality of object positions and positional control, in which the outputs of the position control means are added so that the subordinate object positions can affect the main object position, and the terminal of the robot can quickly respond to changes in the environment around it. (C3L1-35). Like Liu and Song, Mori is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Liu and Song with the robot controller of Mori to combine a stored programmed path (master pathing model) with sensor-derived position corrections into a single robot drive command through weighted addition of plural position control channels. Such modification yields predictable results: the robot follows a pre-programmed path while the vision system makes real-time corrections, which is a standard and well-known control architecture in industrial robotics.
As per Claim 3, the combination of Liu, Song, and Mori teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 2. Liu and Song fail to expressly disclose wherein using the master control signal and the relative position control signal to determine the motor control signal comprises a prioritised superposition of the master control signal and the relative position control signal.
See Claim 2 for teachings of Mori. Mori further discloses wherein using the master control signal and the relative position control signal to determine the motor control signal comprises a prioritised superposition of the master control signal and the relative position control signal. (as per “an object of the invention is to provide a robot controller which is provided with a plurality of object positions and position control means, equal in number to the object positions, and in which the inputs of the position control means are not switched, but instead the outputs of the position control means are added so that the subordinate object positions can affect the main object position, the terminal of the robot can quickly respond to changes in the environment arount it, and the locus thereof can be externally changed with ease” in C3L5-20, as per “object position variable compressing/enlarging means for weighting a plurality of object position variables with weight functions representing dependencies of said object positions in movement to said object positions; a plurality of position control means for receiving said plurality of object position variables weighted by said compressing/enlarging means to perform speed control and position control in said movement; object position command means including a position command adding section for adding output signals of said plurality of position control means to output an object position command” in Claim 1)
In this way, Mori operates to provide a robot controller which is provided with a plurality of object positions and positional control, in which the outputs of the position control means are added so that the subordinate object positions can affect the main object position, and the terminal of the robot can quickly respond to changes in the environment around it. (C3L1-35). Like Liu and Song, Mori is concerned with robotics.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Liu and Song with the robot controller of Mori to combine a stored programmed path (master pathing model) with sensor-derived position corrections into a single robot drive command through weighted addition of plural position control channels. Such modification yields predictable results: the robot follows a pre-programmed path while the vision system makes real-time corrections, which is a standard and well-known control architecture in industrial robotics.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Pub. No. 112571159) in view of Song (CN Pub. No. 108908120) in further view of Iida (US Pub. No. 20210178550).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 4. Liu and Song fail to expressly disclose wherein using the detected image to determine a relative angular position of the tool with respect to the workpiece comprises determining a tangent to the workpiece.
Iida discloses of a workpiece processing device, wherein using the detected image to determine a relative angular position of the tool with respect to the workpiece comprises determining a tangent to the workpiece. (as per “that the calculating unit calculates a tangent line to the surface of the workpiece at the cutting position based on the surface shape of the workpiece, and the control unit rotates the workpiece around the first axis so that the tangent line is perpendicular to a direction along a second axis which is perpendicular to the first axis and parallel to the blade, and relatively moves the workpiece supporting unit and the cutting unit, thereby forming a groove at the cutting position” in ¶22, as per “the gradient of the normal line Ln of the surface shape function Z=f(Y) at the cutting position Pn is calculated to make the normal line Ln parallel to the Z-axis. However, the gradient of the tangent line of the surface shape function Z=f(Y) at the cutting position Pn may be calculated so that the tangent line is perpendicular to the Z-axis” in ¶147)
In this way, Iida operates to use image-based surface-shape analysis to calculate a tangent to the surface of the workpiece at a processing position, and to determine the angular relationship between the workpiece surface and the processing tool so that the workpiece and tool can be relatively positioned in a desired orientation for processing (¶22, ¶147). Like Liu and Song, Iida is concerned with image-guided control of a tool relative to a workpiece during automated processing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Liu and Song with the image-based tangent determination of Iida to enable another standard means of determining the relative angular position of the tool with respect to the workpiece from detected image information. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived surface tangent information, including determination of a tangent at an identified apex or vertex region of the workpiece, to more accurately orient and correct the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece during processing and improve processing accuracy and quality (¶15, ¶22, ¶107, ¶143, ¶147).
As per Claim 7, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Liu and Song fail to expressly disclose wherein using the detected image to determine the tangent to the workpiece comprises determining the position of an apex of a portion of the surface of the workpiece, and determining the tangent to the workpiece at the apex.
See claim 5 for teachings of Iida. Iida further discloseswherein using the detected image to determine the tangent to the workpiece comprises determining the position of an apex of a portion of the surface of the workpiece (as per “wherein the detecting unit detects a vertex of the surface of the workpiece based on an image captured by moving the camera in a direction along a third axis perpendicular to the first axis while the camera is focused on a position farther than the vertex of the workpiece” in ¶15, as per “the control unit 12 controls the Y drive unit 20Y to move the camera of the sensor unit 26 in the Y direction (the direction along a third axis) and capture an image. The control unit 12 detects the vertex based on this image” in ¶107) and determining the tangent to the workpiece at the apex. (as per “when cutting is performed at the cutting position Pn, the calculating unit 16 calculates the rotation angle δn (the rotation angle from the reference rotation position W0) of the workpiece W at which the cutting position Pn matches the vertex of the workpiece W. When cutting is performed at the cutting position Pn, the control unit 12 rotates the workpiece W so that the cutting position Pn matches the vertex of the workpiece W” in ¶143, as per “the gradient of the normal line Ln of the surface shape function Z=f(Y) at the cutting position Pn is calculated to make the normal line Ln parallel to the Z-axis. However, the gradient of the tangent line of the surface shape function Z=f(Y) at the cutting position Pn may be calculated so that the tangent line is perpendicular to the Z-axis” in ¶147)
In this way, Iida operates to use image-based surface-shape analysis to calculate a tangent to the surface of the workpiece at a processing position, and to determine the angular relationship between the workpiece surface and the processing tool so that the workpiece and tool can be relatively positioned in a desired orientation for processing (¶22, ¶147). Like Liu and Song, Iida is concerned with image-guided control of a tool relative to a workpiece during automated processing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Liu and Song with the image-based tangent determination of Iida to enable another standard means of determining the relative angular position of the tool with respect to the workpiece from detected image information. Such modification also allows the system to use image-derived surface tangent information, including determination of a tangent at an identified apex or vertex region of the workpiece, to more accurately orient and correct the relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece during processing and improve processing accuracy and quality (¶15, ¶22, ¶107, ¶143, ¶147).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Pub. No. 112571159) in view of Song (CN Pub. No. 108908120) in view of Iida (US Pub. No. 20210178550) in further view of Wang (CN Pub. No. 109483369).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Liu, Song, and Iida teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 7. Liu, Song, and Iida fail to expressly disclose wherein the portion the of the surface of the workpiece corresponds to the field of view of the camera.
Wang discloses of a robot polishing system with three-dimensional vision, wherein the portion the of the surface of the workpiece corresponds to the field of view of the camera. (as per “step 1.1, selecting the sawtooth block greater than surface workpiece, and toothed vertically upward is placed horizontal in the view range of the 3D camera;” in P3, as per “step 1, laser line scanning surface polishing robot drives the optical device for horizontal scanning and collecting projection on the curved surface work piece curved surface work piece of point cloud image;” in P3, as per “he optical device comprises a 3D camera, an industrial lens, a laser generator, an optical filter, said 3D camera capable of collecting the one-shaped laser generator to project line laser at the curved work surface image” in P2)
In this way, Wang operates to use three-dimensional vision to collect image information and point-cloud data from the portion of the curved surface workpiece that lies within the view range of the 3D camera, so that the control device can process that imaged surface portion and drive the robot to polish the workpiece in the correct posture (Abstract, claim 8). Like Liu, Song, and Iida, Wang is concerned with image-guided control of a tool relative to a workpiece during automated processing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Liu, Song, and Iida with the three-dimensional vision arrangement of Wang to enable another standard means of defining the relevant portion of the workpiece surface as the portion corresponding to the field of view of the camera. Such modification also allows the system to image, process, and analyze the surface region within the camera view range so that the robot can determine and follow an appropriate processing posture and path for the workpiece during automated grinding or polishing, thereby improving processing accuracy and quality.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Pub. No. 112571159) in view of Song (CN Pub. No. 108908120) in further view of Kashiwagi (JP Pub. No. H09141582).
As per Claim 9, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Liu and Song fail to expressly disclose comprising providing the determined relative position as an input to a tool speed controller, wherein the tool speed controller is configured to:
compare the determined relative position of the tool to a second predetermined value, or to a second range of predetermined values, and:
if the determined relative position of the tool is greater than the second predetermined value, or is not within the second range of predetermined values, issue a speed control signal comprising an instruction to move the tool towards the new position at a first rate of change of relative position; or
if the determined relative position of the tool is less than or equal to the second predetermined value, or is within the second range of predetermined values, issue a speed control signal comprising an instruction to move the tool towards the new position at a second rate of change of relative position, wherein the second rate of change of relative position is less than the first rate of change of relative position,
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the speed control signal to determine the motor control signal.
Kashiwagi discloses of contact position detection device for force control robot, comprising providing the determined relative position as an input to a tool speed controller, (as per “the distance between a tool 7 and a workpiece 6 is measured by an optical displacement gage 12, and a position computing part 41 computes a low speed moving point and the contact target value of the workpiece 6” in the Abstract, as per “based on the detected distance, the position calculation unit 41 calculates the target position value … and the position of the switching point b for low speed movement” in P9)
wherein the tool speed controller is configured to compare the determined relative position of the tool to a second predetermined value, or to a second range of predetermined values, (as per “the operation control command unit 44 monitors whether or not the point b has been passed” in P10, as per claim 1 reciting a first position, a second position, and movement between them)
if the determined relative position of the tool is greater than the second predetermined value, or is not within the second range of predetermined values, issue a speed control signal comprising an instruction to move the tool towards the new position at a first rate of change of relative position; (as per “Therefore, as shown by the solid line in FIG. 5, initially (between the points a and b), the grinding tool 7 moves at a high speed of VH to a position where Kc .Math. KΔX <VH. Then, the speed will gradually decrease in proportion to ΔX” in P10, as per “In step S7, the operation control command unit 44 monitors whether or not the point b has been passed, based on the position detection result from the position calculation unit 41, and if it has not passed, step S6 If the point b is passed, the process proceeds to step S8, and the control state is switched to the constant force mode” in P10, as per “As a result, the tool moves in the spring mode toward the position target value at the speed shown in equation (4) (step S6). The speed at this time is proportional to the deviation Δx between the target position value and the current position as shown by the dotted line in FIG. That is, the speed changes from high speed to low speed as the position target value is approached. Actually, in the initial stage, the upper limit value VH of the speed is set so that the speed is not further increased” in P10)
if the determined relative position of the tool is less than or equal to the second predetermined value, or is within the second range of predetermined values, issue a speed control signal comprising an instruction to move the tool towards the new position at a second rate of change of relative position, wherein the second rate of change of relative position is less than the first rate of change of relative position, (as per “Next, in step S3, the distance to the position detection point 49 of the work 6A is measured by the optical displacement meter 12 while the operation of the robot body 1 is stopped. Then, based on the detected distance, the position calculation unit 41 calculates the target position value of the point where the grinding tool 7 contacts the work 6A and the position of the switching point b for low speed movement (step S)” in P9, as per “In step S7, the operation control command unit 44 monitors whether or not the point b has been passed, based on the position detection result from the position calculation unit 41, and if it has not passed, step S6 If the point b is passed, the process proceeds to step S8, and the control state is switched to the constant force mode” in P10)
wherein the tool position controller is configured to use the speed control signal to determine the motor control signal. (as per “A controller gain (characteristic compensation coefficient) Kc and an upper limit value of speed are set in the characteristic compensation calculator 32. Further, the above-mentioned calculated value input to the characteristic compensation calculating section 32 is subjected to characteristic compensation in control here, and thereby the speed command value <v> is calculated” in P6, as per “The speed command value <v> finally obtained by the position / force control calculation unit 25 is the drive command unit 33 is supplied” in P6)
In this way, Kashiwagi operates to use detected distance and calculated position information to determine a switching point for low-speed movement, so that the tool moves at a higher speed when farther from the workpiece, switches control upon passing the switching point, and then moves at a lower speed toward contact, while the calculated speed command is converted into a drive command for the robot motors (Abstract, P10). Like Liu and Song, Kashiwagi is concerned with robotic control of a tool relative to a workpiece during automated processing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Liu and Song with the speed-control arrangement of Kashiwagi to enable another standard means of varying the rate of tool movement based on the determined relative position of the tool with respect to the workpiece. Such modification also allows the system to compare the determined relative position to a nearer switching point, command a lower approach speed when the tool is within that nearer region, and use the resulting speed command to generate motor drive commands, thereby improving approach safety, positional accuracy, and processing reliability (Abstract, P10).
Claim(s) 10 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Pub. No. 112571159) in view of Song (CN Pub. No. 108908120) in further view of Ohga (US Pub. No. 20120150347).
As per Claim 10, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 9. Liu and Song fail to expressly disclose wherein the tool speed controller is integral with the relative tool position controller.
Ohga discloses of a robot controlling device wherein the tool speed controller is integral with the relative tool position controller. (as per “There is force control which controls a position and a contact force in an operational coordinate system while an endpoint such as an endpoint part of an arm of a robot (hereinafter, simply referred to as “endpoint”) is in contact with a target object” in ¶3, as per “an endpoint position of a robot and a position commanded value for the endpoint position; an external force calculator calculating an external force applied to the endpoint position; a force commanded value generator generating a force commanded value for the endpoint position; a force error calculator calculating a force error between the external force and the force commanded value; a storage storing the compliance model for the endpoint position; a first correction amount calculator calculating a first correction amount for the position commanded value, according to the force error, using the compliance model; and a second correction amount calculator calculating a second correction amount for the position commanded value” in Abstract, as per “The position commanded value generator 113 calculates an interpolated endpoint position commanded value “xR” for each control period, from the target endpoint position data… The position error calculator 114 performs calculation of Expression (8) from the endpoint position commanded value “xR” generated by the position commanded value generator 113” in ¶64)
In this way, Ohga operates to perform force control and position control within the same robot controlling device, so that an external force applied to the endpoint is used to generate a correction amount for the position commanded value and the corrected position error is then used to control robot motion (¶3], ¶15-¶32). Like Liu and Song, Ohga is concerned with robotic control of a tool relative to a workpiece during automated processing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Liu and Song with the integrated force-and-position control arrangement of Ohga to enable another standard means of implementing the force controller as integral with the relative tool position controller. Such modification also allows force error information to be incorporated directly into position-command correction within the same control architecture, thereby improving coordinated position/force response, control stability, and processing reliability (¶15-¶32, ¶51-¶68).
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to Claim 10 above, respectively.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN Pub. No. 112571159) in view of Song (CN Pub. No. 108908120) in further view of Warhburg (WO Pub. No. 2016110320).
As per Claim 20, the combination of Liu and Song teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Liu and Song fail to expressly disclose wherein determining the magnitude of the force vector comprises determining the sum of force vectors applied to the tool by the motors.
Warhburg discloses of estimation of external forces and torques on a robot arm, wherein determining the magnitude of the force vector comprises determining the sum of force vectors applied to the tool by the motors. (as per “Basic idea of the invention is to deal with an improved method for estimating contact forces and torques at the tip of the robot arm respectively its tool center point (TCP) based solely on joint angles, motor torques and a dynamic model of the robot so that no additional sensors such as joint torque sensors of force/torque sensors mounted on the wrist are needed” in P3, as per “respectively, r.sub.ext arises from external forces and torques and Tmot contains the torques
exerted by the motors” in ¶3, as per “The proposed scheme is based on obtaining an estimate for r.sub.ext from T- ext T-mot - (H (q) .Math. q + C (q, q) .Math. q + T-grav (q) + T.sub.fric) (2) wherein H(q) .sup.■ q + C(q, q) .sup.■ q + T.sub.grav (q) are measured from low-level robot controls” om P4)
In this way, Warhburg operates to estimate an externally applied force and torque at the tool center point from motor torques, joint angles, and robot dynamic terms, so that the external wrench acting at the tool can be determined without a dedicated force sensor (P3, claim 1). Like Liu and Song, Warhburg is concerned with robotic control of a tool relative to a workpiece during automated processing.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Liu and Song with the motor-torque-based external wrench estimation of Warhburg to enable another standard means of determining the magnitude of the force vector from torque contributions generated by the robot motors. Such modification also allows the system to combine motor torque information with robot dynamic terms and convert the resulting external torque estimate into a force/wrench at the tool.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zana (US Pub. No. 4952772) discloses an automatic seam tracker and real time error cumulative control system for an industrial robot.
Okuda (US Pub. No. 20040206735) discloses a laser machining robot.
Haschke (DE Pub No. 102006030130) discloses a workpiece machining method for, e.g., industrial robot, involves compensating deviation of determined actual-position from reference-movement path and deviation of determined actual-speed vector from measured reference-speed vector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER R ROBARGE whose telephone number is (703)756-5872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights