DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 9, 22, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7, 9, and 24 each recite the limitation “…system of claim 1/claim 15, and further comprising:” in the preamble of each claim. The “and” in this limitation may be removed such that the language merely reads “…system of claim 1/claim 15, further comprising:”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “…wherein the surface feature is a valley, a ridge, an area of increased curvature, an area of convex curvature, an area of concave curvature, an area of rapid transition of convex and concave curvature on the vehicle surface” in lines 2-4. It appears as though a linking term is missing in this string of options for the feature classification. Examiner recommends adding or to the limitation such that the claim reads “…wherein the surface feature is a valley, a ridge, an area of increased curvature, an area of convex curvature, an area of concave curvature, or an area of rapid transition of convex and concave curvature on the vehicle surface…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“a process mapping system” introduced in claim 1. The disclosure defines such a system as, “Process mapping system 600 may be built into a robot controller of a robotic repair unit, in some embodiments. In other embodiments, process mapping system 600 may be remote from robotic repair unit 670, as indicated in FIG. 6” [0068]. Thus, the process mapping system is a software extension of the robotic system and as such any software equivalent will be considered when reviewing the prior art.
Because this/these claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 15, 22, and 29-30 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 1 recites the limitation "the robotic repair arm" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such repair has been defined in the claim, and as such it is unclear when and how the robotic arm becomes a robotic repair arm or if there is another robotic arm which is meant to repair the worksurface. Examiner best assumes that this robotic arm is the same robotic arm as was previously introduced and as such reads the limitation generally as “the robotic arm”.
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 6 and 8 recite the limitation "the approximated surface" in lines 1-2 of claim 6 and line 2 of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 approximates a surface topography but the surface is not itself approximated. As such, Examiner best understands the limitation to read “the approximated surface topography”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the derivative of the approximated curvature" in line 2. Similarly, claim 15 recites the limitation “the curvature and derivative of curvature” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such curvature or derivative of curvature has been introduced in either claim or their respective dependencies. As such, Examiner interprets the limitations to generally read “a derivative of an approximated curvature” and “a curvature and derivative of curvature”.
Claim 29 recites the limitations "the robotic system" and “the modified trajectory” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such robotic system or modified trajectory has been introduced in claim 29 or claim 15. Examiner best understands the claim to be dependent instead on claim 1, which introduces a robotic system and a modified trajectory. As such, the limitation will be interpreted as “The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the modified trajectory includes…”.
Claim 30 recites the limitations "the robotic system" and “the trajectory template” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such robotic system or trajectory template has been introduced in claim 30 or claim 15. Examiner best understands to be dependent instead on claim 1, which introduces a robotic system. Claim 1, however, does not introduce a trajectory template. As such, Examiner will interpret the claim to read “The robotic system of claim 1, wherein a trajectory template…”.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 15 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 15 fall within one of the statutory categories? Claim 15 is directed a system and as such falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claim 15 is directed to mental processes.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Given a worksurface, a human could visually analyze a worksurface to approximate the surface and its associated curvature and the derivative of such curvature. From this analysis, a human could then identify the point at which “zero-crossing” in the derivative of the curvature such that the curve transitions from a convex manner to a concave manner signaling the beginning or end of a ridge, valley, etc.
Thus, the limitations “a surface approximator that approximates the surface at each of the plurality of surface samples using an approximation;
a curvature approximator that approximates the curvature and derivative of curvature at each of the plurality of surface samples; and
a feature detector that, based on a derivative of the curvature approximation at each of the surface samples, identifies a point of zero-crossing in the derivative of curvature as a detected feature point.” may be practicably performed in the human mind through observations, evaluations, and judgement of the worksurface, and thus the limitations are directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 15 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
The limitation “a surface sampling receiver that receives a plurality of surface samples from a surface imaging system” may be considered as mere data gathering, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 15 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Limitations identified as “apply it” in step 2A qualify as apply it in step 2B as well.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 15 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 15 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent claims 17, 21-22, and 24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 17, 21-22, and 24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 15.
Therefore, claims 15, 17, 21-22, and 24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Note that in light of the 112(b) rejections for claims 29-30 in which it is best understood that claims 29-30 depend off of claim 1, claims 29-30 have not been considered with respect the rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 29-30, 32, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hausler (US 2018/0326591 A1; from IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Hausler discloses a robotic system (System of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 which include robots 31, 32, 33, and 34.) comprising:
a surface inspection system that receives a plurality of sampled points within a region of a worksurface (“In the present example, manipulators 31, 32, and 33, equipped with sensor heads 21, 22, and 23, are employed in a robot cell and perform the surface inspection simultaneously” [0028]. The sensor heads collect image data which creates a point cloud, i.e., plurality of sampled points, over their designated inspection region, i.e., region of a worksurface.);
a robotic arm, coupled to a surface processing tool, the robotic repair arm being configured to cause the surface processing tool to engage the region of the worksurface (“FIG. 2 shows a robot cell with a manipulator 34 that is equipped with a grinding tool 24 (e.g. an orbital grinding machine)” [0033]. The paragraph further describes the grinding tool’s “contact force” and the act of the tool being “pressed against the surface”. Thus, there is a robot arm, i.e., manipulator, coupled to a grinder, i.e., surface processing tool, which causes the grinder to contact/press, i.e., engage, the worksurface.); and
a process mapping system configured to, based on the plurality of sampled points:
approximate a surface topography of the region of the worksurface (“The first result of a three-dimensional measurement of a defect candidate is a point cloud that describes the three-dimensional structure (the topography) of the relevant surface area. For each defect candidate, for example, its lateral extension (across the surface) and its height or depth (extension perpendicular to the surface) can be determined with great precision from the point clouds provided by the sensor heads 21, 22, and 23 (see also FIG. 3) using surface reconstruction” [0031]. Thus, the point cloud, i.e., sampled points, describes/approximates the topography of an area of the surface.);
modify a trajectory for the robotic arm, based on the approximated surface topography (“In accordance with one further embodiment, the method comprises the localization of defects in a surface of a workpiece as well as determining a three-dimensional topography of the localized defects and categorizing at least one localized defect based on its topography. Dependent on the defect category of the at least one defect, a machining process is selected” [0008]. “Each machining process may be associated with at least one template of a machining path along which the defect is to be machined. A machining path for the at least one defect may then be determined by means of projection of the at least one template onto the workpiece surface in accordance with a CAD model of the workpiece” [0010]. Thus, based on the detected/approximated topography, a machining process is selected which produces a machining path which is modified from an original template when it is projected onto the approximated surface.); and
generate a control signal for the robotic arm that comprises a path for the robotic arm into the region (“…in accordance with the selected machining process, a robot program for the robot-assisted machining of the at least one defect is generated with computer assistance” [0008]. Thus, the robot program implements the machining of the defect via the robot manipulator over the designated machining path, providing the appropriate control signal to the controller 40.).
Regarding claim 2, Hausler discloses the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the worksurface is a vehicle (“…the surface of a workpiece 10, for example, a car body painted with base coat and primer” [0028]. Thus, a car, i.e., vehicle, is the example workpiece used in the prior art’s disclosure.).
Regarding claim 3, Hausler discloses the robotic system of claim 2,
wherein the region contains a defect (“The purpose of the surface inspection is a detection (this includes a localization) of surface defects and a three-dimensional measurement of at least those areas of the workpiece surface in or on which a defect has been detected” [0028]. Thus, the area which is inspected, i.e., region, is determined to comprise a defect.), and
wherein the surface engaging tool is a material removal tool (Grinding is a common process for removing material from a surface, and as such the grinding tool 24 is a material removal tool.).
Regarding claim 4, Hausler discloses the robotic system of claim 3, wherein the surface processing tool is a sander or polishing tool (Grinding is synonymous with sanding and thus the grinding tool 24 may be considered to be a sander.).
Regarding claim 6, Hausler discloses the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the trajectory is mapped onto the approximated surface (“To calculate the actual machining path X.sub.i the points of the template are projected (see FIG. 5, step S7) from the defect plane E.sub.i onto the workpiece surface (in accordance with the CAD model)” [0040]. Thus, the trajectory is projected, i.e., mapped, onto the model, i.e., approximated, surface.).
Regarding claim 7, Hausler discloses the robotic system of claim 1, and further comprising:
approximating curvature at each of the sampled points in the region; and wherein the approximated surface topography comprises the approximated curvature (“In the present example, no separate image acquisition is required for the three-dimensional measurement, but instead only a digital evaluation of the two-dimensional camera images (curvature images, the curvature information is in the gray values of the individual pixels); from these, point clouds of 3D coordinates of points on the surface of the workpiece (in the areas of defects/defect candidates) can be calculated” [0029]. Thus, the two-dimensional camera images approximate curvature information which is used to generate the point cloud data, i.e., approximated topography.).
Regarding claim 8, Hausler discloses the robotic system of claim 7, wherein approximating curvature comprises sampling the approximated surface (The process of imaging the worksurface with sensor heads 21, 22, and 23 may be considered sampling of the approximated surface. Thus, determining the curvature information, i.e., approximating the curvature, requires a sampling of the approximated surface.).
Regarding claim 10, Hausler discloses the robotic system of claim 2, wherein the trajectory is selected based on a defect size, defect location, defect type or defect severity (“In practice, relevant or useful criteria for the categorization of surface defects may be, e.g., the distinction of defects with regard to size categories (e.g. very small, small, medium, large), the distinction of defects with regard to their lateral extension (e.g. defined by the average or maximum radius of the defect), the distinction of flaws with regard to their extension perpendicular to the workpiece surface (e.g. an encapsulation (bulge) with a height of more than 5 μm, a crater (dent) with a depth of more than 10 μm, etc.)” [0037]. Thus, defect size and severity are described to be relevant to the categorization of such defects, in which the categorization determines the machining path. Paragraph [0038] continues on regarding the type, frequency, and spatial arrangement of defects in determining the repair plan.).
Note that for the following rejections of claims 29-30, it has been best understood by Examiner that claims 29-30 depend off of claim 1 and the rejections will herein be treated as such.
Regarding claim 29, Hausler discloses the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the modified trajectory includes a modified tool force, disk speed, or tool speed (“The controller 40 does not only set the trajectory of the robot but also the tool-dependent parameters relevant to the repair process such as, e.g., contact pressure of the grinding tool 24, rotational speed or velocity of the abrasives and the like” [0033]. Thus, the control of the path/trajectory is dependent upon contact pressure (force), rotational (disk) speed, and velocity (tool speed).).
Regarding claim 30, Hausler discloses the robotic system of claim 1, wherein the trajectory template is selected based on a defect size, defect location, defect type or defect severity (“In practice, relevant or useful criteria for the categorization of surface defects may be, e.g., the distinction of defects with regard to size categories (e.g. very small, small, medium, large), the distinction of defects with regard to their lateral extension (e.g. defined by the average or maximum radius of the defect), the distinction of flaws with regard to their extension perpendicular to the workpiece surface (e.g. an encapsulation (bulge) with a height of more than 5 μm, a crater (dent) with a depth of more than 10 μm, etc.)” [0037]. Thus, defect size and severity are described to be relevant to the categorization of such defects, in which the categorization determines the machining path. Paragraph [0038] continues on regarding the type, frequency, and spatial arrangement of defects in determining the repair plan.).
Regarding claim 32, Hausler discloses a method of removing material from a worksurface (“The present disclosure generally relates to the field of industrial robots, in particular to a system and a method for the automated detection of defects in surfaces (e.g. painting defects on a car body) and the robot-assisted machining thereof, in particular by grinding and polishing” [0002]. Thus, there is such a method of machining defects in a worksurface by grinding and polishing which equates to removing of material.), the method comprising:
identifying a target area on the worksurface for material removal (“The purpose of the surface inspection is a detection (this includes a localization) of surface defects and a three-dimensional measurement of at least those areas of the workpiece surface in or on which a defect has been detected” [0028]. Thus, a detected defect determines the target area of the worksurface.);
sampling a surface around the target area on the worksurface (“In the present example, manipulators 31, 32, and 33, equipped with sensor heads 21, 22, and 23, are employed in a robot cell and perform the surface inspection simultaneously” [0028]. The sensor heads collect image data which creates a point cloud, i.e., plurality of sampled points, over their designated inspection region, i.e., target area on the worksurface.);
modeling the surface and, based on the model, detecting a surface topography (“The first result of a three-dimensional measurement of a defect candidate is a point cloud that describes the three-dimensional structure (the topography) of the relevant surface area. For each defect candidate, for example, its lateral extension (across the surface) and its height or depth (extension perpendicular to the surface) can be determined with great precision from the point clouds provided by the sensor heads 21, 22, and 23 (see also FIG. 3) using surface reconstruction” [0031]. Thus, the point cloud models the three-dimensional structure of the system, thereby detecting the topography of the surface.);
modifying a surface processing trajectory based on the detected surface topography, wherein the surface processing trajectory comprises a movement path through the target area (“In accordance with one further embodiment, the method comprises the localization of defects in a surface of a workpiece as well as determining a three-dimensional topography of the localized defects and categorizing at least one localized defect based on its topography. Dependent on the defect category of the at least one defect, a machining process is selected” [0008]. “Each machining process may be associated with at least one template of a machining path along which the defect is to be machined. A machining path for the at least one defect may then be determined by means of projection of the at least one template onto the workpiece surface in accordance with a CAD model of the workpiece” [0010]. Thus, based on the detected/approximated topography, a machining process is selected which produces a machining path which is modified from an original template when it is projected onto the approximated surface.); and
transmitting a control signal to a robotic material removal system, wherein the control signal comprises the modified trajectory (“…in accordance with the selected machining process, a robot program for the robot-assisted machining of the at least one defect is generated with computer assistance” [0008]. Thus, the robot program implements the machining of the defect via the robot manipulator over the designated machining path, providing the appropriate control signal to the controller 40.).
Regarding claim 33, Hausler discloses the method of claim 32, wherein modeling the surface comprises:
approximating the surface at each of a plurality of sampled surface locations (Each of the sensor heads 21, 22, and 23 approximates the surface topography at the designated surface region, i.e., sampled surface locations. Thus, the surface is approximated at each of a plurality of surface regions.).
Regarding claim 35, Hausler discloses the method of claim 32, wherein the target area comprises a defect (“The purpose of the surface inspection is a detection (this includes a localization) of surface defects and a three-dimensional measurement of at least those areas of the workpiece surface in or on which a defect has been detected” [0028]. Thus, the area which is inspected, i.e., target area, is determined to comprise a defect.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9, 15, 17, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausler in view of Kim (“Extraction of Ridge and Valley Lines from Unorganized Points”; from IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Hausler teaches the robotic system of claim 1.
Hausler does not teach calculating the derivative of the approximated curvature at each of the sampled points; and
identifying a surface feature in the region based on the derivative calculation.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches calculating the derivative of the approximated curvature at each of the sampled points (Section 3.4 (Page 269-270) discusses a process for finding the derivative of the approximated curvature at each sampled point. Specifically, the curvature derivative e is calculated by equation (4).); and
identifying a surface feature in the region based on the derivative calculation (Section 3.5 (Pages 270-271) discusses extracting ridge points, i.e., surface features of a region, based on the previously determined derivative of curvature, emax. The point of zero crossing in which this derivative value changes signs is determined as the ridge point.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Hausler to include the approximations for curvature and derivative of curvature as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the approximations of curvature and derivative of curvature as taught by Kim reduces computational time for such an approximation (Kim, Page 269).
Regarding claim 15, Hausler teaches a surface feature detection system for detecting a feature on a worksurface (“The present disclosure generally relates to the field of industrial robots, in particular to a system and a method for the automated detection of defects in surfaces (e.g. painting defects on a car body)” [0002]. Thus, there is a detection system which identifies a defect, i.e., feature.), the system comprising:
a surface sampling receiver that receives a plurality of surface samples from a surface imaging system (“FIG. 1 shows an example of a measurement system with a plurality of sensors, guided by manipulators (industrial robots), for the optical inspection, with the use of cameras, of the surface of a workpiece 10, for example, a car body painted with base coat and primer” [0028]. Thus, a plurality of images, i.e., surface samples, are received by the sensors 21, 22, and 23.);
a surface approximator that approximates the surface at each of the plurality of surface samples using an approximation (“The first result of a three-dimensional measurement of a defect candidate is a point cloud that describes the three-dimensional structure (the topography) of the relevant surface area” [0031]. Thus, a point cloud is approximated based on the measurement data collected by the imaging structures.); …
Hausler does not teach …a curvature approximator that approximates the curvature and derivative of curvature at each of the plurality of surface samples; and
a feature detector that, based on a derivative of the curvature approximation at each of the surface samples, identifies a point of zero-crossing in the derivative of curvature as a detected feature point.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …a curvature approximator that approximates the curvature and derivative of curvature at each of the plurality of surface samples (Section 3.4 (Page 269-270) discusses a process for finding the derivative of the approximated curvature at each sampled point. Specifically, the curvature derivative e is calculated by equation (4).); and
a feature detector that, based on a derivative of the curvature approximation at each of the surface samples, identifies a point of zero-crossing in the derivative of curvature as a detected feature point (Section 3.5 (Pages 270-271) discusses extracting ridge points, i.e., surface features of a region, based on the previously determined derivative of curvature, emax. The point of zero crossing in which this derivative value changes signs is determined as the ridge point.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Hausler to include the approximations for curvature and derivative of curvature as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the approximations of curvature and derivative of curvature as taught by Kim reduces computational time for such an approximation (Kim, Page 269).
Regarding claim 17, Hausler as modified by Kim (references made to Hausler) teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the detected feature is overlayed over the approximated surface or the sampled surfaces (“Dependent on the geometry of the workpiece, certain areas of the workpiece surface may not be able to be machined (e.g. design edges and the like). Such “forbidden areas” of the workpiece surface may be marked in the CAD model, for example, as a set of edges (depicted as spread lines), which must not overlap with a machining area (see FIG. 9, edge 11)” [0042]. Thus, the edge is marked, i.e., overlayed over, the approximated surface, i.e., CAD model.).
Regarding claim 21, Hausler as modified by Kim (references made to Hausler) teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of surface samples are within a radius of a target area on the worksurface (“Similarly, a machining of surface defects may be made dependent on whether they appear cumulatively (i.e. when more than a specific number of defects appear within a spatially confined area of the workpiece surface). Seen individually, a very small defect would not be relevant. When, however, too many (not relevant if seen individually) very small defects are within a specific distance to each other, then these together are no longer irrelevant and have to be considered in the machining process” [0038]. Thus, within the target region which is sampled is considered to be a spatially confined area which may be within a specified radius of each other.).
Regarding claim 22, Hausler as modified by Kim (references made to Hausler) teaches the system of claim 21,
wherein the worksurface is a vehicle surface (“…the surface of a workpiece 10, for example, a car body painted with base coat and primer” [0028]. Thus, a car, i.e., vehicle, is the example workpiece used in the prior art’s disclosure.),
the target area comprises a defect (“The purpose of the surface inspection is a detection (this includes a localization) of surface defects and a three-dimensional measurement of at least those areas of the workpiece surface in or on which a defect has been detected” [0028]. Thus, the area which is inspected, i.e., target area, is determined to comprise a defect.), and
wherein the surface feature is a valley, a ridge, an area of increased curvature, an area of convex curvature, an area of concave curvature, an area of rapid transition of convex and concave curvature on the vehicle surface proximate the defect (The surface feature is determined as an “edge” which may be synonymous with a ridge. This edge is shown as edge 11 in Fig. 9.).
Regarding claim 24, Hausler as modified by Kim (references made directly within citation) teaches the system of claim 15, and further comprising:
a repair evaluator that, based on the approximated curvature and approximated derivative of curvature, classifies an area as robotically repairable or not robotically repairable (Kim teaches the determination of a valley or ridge based on the approximated curvature and derivative of curvature. The edge (11) of Fig. 9 in Hausler may be considered as the determined ridge. “Dependent on the geometry of the workpiece, certain areas of the workpiece surface may not be able to be machined (e.g. design edges and the like). Such “forbidden areas” of the workpiece surface may be marked in the CAD model, for example, as a set of edges (depicted as spread lines), which must not overlap with a machining area (see FIG. 9, edge 11)” [0042]. Thus, features such as the edge 11 are determined as “forbidden areas” which may not be machined, and therefore are not robotically repairable. All other such regions of the worksurface have been determined to be robotically repairable, as such other areas are provided the trajectory projections for the robot to perform the machining. See also [0038] which discusses other criteria for determining whether or not defects are machined.).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausler.
Regarding claim 38, Hausler teaches the method of claim 32.
However, Hausler does not explicitly teach …wherein the modified movement path has a smaller area than the original movement path.
The disclosure does however note, “The template may be adapted to the defect D.sub.i dependent on its lateral extension, e.g. by means of transformation by shifting, rotating, scaling or skewing or an arbitrary combination of shifting, rotating, scaling and skewing” [0041]. Thus, the transformation of such a template would lead the resulting area of the modified movement path to be either larger, smaller, or the same as the area of the original movement path based on the results of the template, surface model, parameters of the defect, and the transformation. Such modification would be obvious as a result-effective variable (see 2144.05.II(B)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/579,421 (hereinafter “‘421”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because by the broadest reasonable interpretation, each limitation shares the equivalent scope and content. Such scope and content is outlined as follows with references acknowledging the slight nuances of the language used in ‘421 as it compares to the instant application:
Claim 1 of ‘421 discloses a robotic system comprising:
a surface inspection system that receives a plurality of sampled points within a region of a worksurface (“sampling information for a number of areas within a region of a worksurface” may be considered to cover the same scope as “a plurality of sampled points within a region of a worksurface” because both phrases require a sampling of points in a designated region of the worksurface, wherein information for a number of areas may be considered as the sampled points.);
a robotic arm, coupled to a surface processing tool (“surface engaging tool” covers the same scope as “a surface processing tool”. Each tool performs the same function.), the robotic repair arm being configured to cause the surface processing tool to engage the region of the worksurface; and
a process mapping system configured to, based on the plurality of sampled points (“sampling information” has been described above to be the equivalent of “sampled points”.):
approximate a surface topography of the region of the worksurface;
modify a trajectory for the robotic arm, based on the approximated surface topography (“the surface processing plan comprises one of: … a trajectory modification that accounts for the presence of a surface feature identified in the approximated surface topography” performs the equivalent function of modifying a trajectory for the robotic arm based on the approximated surface topography.); and
generate a control signal for the robotic arm that comprises a path for the robotic arm into the region (“the surface processing plan” equates to “a path for the robotic arm into the region” because the processing plan is a path/trajectory which the robot follows in the region.).
This is a prov