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 .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on October 3, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, and 14-17 are amended. Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 12-13, and 18-22 are filed as originally or previously presented. Claims 7, 11, and 23-39 are cancelled. Amendments to claims 9 and 16 obviate the claim objections, and as such those objections have been withdrawn. The amendments to claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 15-17 obviate the 112b rejections and as such those rejections have been withdrawn. The 112f claim interpretations and prior art rejections are discussed below in “Response to Arguments”. In light of amendments to claims presented in this application as well as amendments to application number 18/579,421 which presented grounds for provisional double patenting rejections presented in the previous action, such double patenting rejections have been withdrawn as amendments provided sufficient limitations required to overcome the double patenting rejection of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that there is sufficient structure recited for the process mapping system which was interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations, thereby making such interpretation improper (Page 7 of Remarks). Examiner respectfully disagrees, as no such structure has been recited to indicate whether or not such a system is a physical hardware system or a software system. According to MPEP 2181.I(A), “The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998).” Applicant has not provided any such context for which the proper structure is recited with respect to the process mapping system, and as such Examiner maintains the 112(f) claim interpretation as follows given that system is considered to be a generic placeholder. In addition to the above generic placeholder analysis, such a system is merely directed to an approximation of a surface topography in addition to modifying a repair trajectory based on the approximation. Since no such structure is clearly stated to perform these functions and a system is determined to be a generic placeholder, Examiner finds the 112(f) necessary to clarify the record and define how such function is to be executed.
Applicant argues that the references of record from the previous rejection fail to teach modifying a trajectory based on the approximated topography (Pages 8-9 of Remarks). Respectfully, Examiner disagrees. Examiner relies on Paragraph [0010] which determines the trajectory template is projected onto the three-dimensional topography of the surface which the defect is localized. Throughout the disclosure, Hausler refers to such a projection as a process of adapting the template by shifting, rotating, scaling, or skewing said template. Thus, the trajectory is modified during projection by means of the transformation based on the approximated topography, as such approximated topography localizes defects in the CAD model which is the projection, i.e., modification, space. Thus, Examiner has considered arguments, but such arguments are deemed to be NOT PERSUASIVE.
Applicant additionally argues that Kim does not remedy the deficits identified above for independent claim 14 and as such dependent claim 9 is allowable (Page 9 of Remarks). Provided Examiner’s comments above regarding the limitations of the independent claims, such argument is rendered moot as Kim is not required to overcome such deficiencies. Examiner additionally notes that claim 9 in the instant application is an independent claim and ascertains that Applicant meant to argue in favor of dependent claim 17.
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(s) is/are:
“a process mapping system” introduced in claim 1. The disclosure defines such a system as, “Process mapping system 1100 may be built into a robot controller of a robotic repair unit, in some embodiments. In other embodiments, process mapping system 1100 may be remote from robotic repair unit 1170, as indicated in FIG. 11” [0105]. Thus, the process mapping system is a software extension of the robotic system and as such any software equivalent will be considered pertinent when reviewing the prior art.
Because this 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/these 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 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite amended limitation “default trajectory” in lines 6 and 2-3 respectively. Although Applicant discloses functions of “retrieving a trajectory
template” in Paragraphs [0042], [0046], and [0111] of the specification, a selected trajectory template would not necessarily be considered as a default trajectory. In other words, default trajectories may include selected trajectory templates, but selected trajectory templates are not inherently default trajectories. As such, there exists no adequate support for such default trajectory and Examiner will instead read the limitation to include trajectory template in its place when rejecting the below limitations.
Claims 2-5 and 8 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “projects a surface curvature into a 2-dimensional plane” in line 2. Applicant’s disclosure describes the projection of surface features and projection of trajectory/path into a 2-dimensional plane (see [0051], [0068-0069], [0079], [0187], and [0233]). Such features, trajectory, and/or path are derived based on varying analyses of a surface curvature, however the surface curvature itself may not be considered as a feature or trajectory which is projected into the 2-dimensional plane. Therefore, there is no such supporting description that would suggest that the curvature itself is projected into a 2-dimensional plane. In fact, Claim 17 of the instant application describes surface features being derived based on a derivative of approximated curvature which would directly contradict the claim that a surface curvature is a surface feature.
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 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-22 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 sampling information for a number of areas within a region of a worksurface (“In the present example, manipulators 31, 32, and 33, equipped with sensor heads 21, 22, and 23, are employ ed in a robot cell and perform the surface inspection simultaneously” [0028]. The sensor heads collect image data which creates a point cloud, i.e., sampling information, over their designated inspection region, i.e., region of a worksurface. The use of multiple such sensor heads may apply to “a number of areas within a region of the worksurface”.);
a robotic arm, coupled to a surface engaging tool, the robotic arm being configured to cause a 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 engaging tool, which causes the grinder to contact/press, i.e., engage, the worksurface.);
a robotic controller configured to retrieve a trajectory template for the worksurface “The at least one defect is categorized based on the determined parameter set. That is, the defect is assigned to a defect category. A machining process stored in a database is selected in dependency of the defect category of the at least one defect. Each machining process is associated with at least one template of a machining path along which the defect is to be machined” [0011]. Thus, an indicated defect is assigned a category to which a trajectory template is determined. See Paragraph [0044] in which the data processing device which performs the trajectory selection additionally performs control of disclosed methods and thus will be determined as a robotic controller.); and
a process mapping system configured to, based on the sampling information:
approximate a surface topography in 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.);
generate a surface processing plan, based on the approximated surface topography, for the region based on the approximated surface topography that comprises a modified trajectory (“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.), wherein the surface processing plan comprises a modification to one of:
a force profile along the trajectory; a velocity profile for the surface engaging tool along the trajectory; a rotational speed profile, for the surface engaging tool, along the trajectory (“A machining step is defined by one or more machining paths, which are defined by base points, a path velocity with which the machining paths are to be run through, as well as time and/or position-dependent trigger points on the machining paths at which specifiable actions may be triggered (e.g. change of process parameters such as, e.g., contact pressure, rotational speed, activation of a rotational and/or eccentric motion of the grinding tool and the like)” [0036]. Thus, along the trajectory, there exists a path velocity (profile) which the tool follows throughout the trajectory, as well as trigger points in which the pressure, i.e., force, and the rotational speed of the tool along the surface changes, thereby setting force and rotational speed profiles. Such profiles are modified when the trajectory is modified as such trigger points are position-dependent.);
wherein the trajectory modification accounts for the presence of a surface feature identified in the approximated surface topography (“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)… Also in this case, an attempt may be made to avoid an overlap by use of a transformation (shift, rotation, scaling, skew) of the respective template. This situation is illustrated in FIG. 9” [0042]. Thus, the trajectory template is modified to account for the presence of an edge, i.e., surface feature which may not be machined.); and
generate a control signal for the robotic arm that comprises the surface processing plan (“…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 system of claim 1,
wherein the surface processing plan comprises a trajectory modification that accounts for the presence of a surface feature identified in the approximated surface topography (“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)… Also in this case, an attempt may be made to avoid an overlap by use of a transformation (shift, rotation, scaling, skew) of the respective template. This situation is illustrated in FIG. 9” [0042]. Thus, the trajectory template is modified to account for the presence of an edge, i.e., surface feature which may not be machined.),
wherein the surface feature comprises a concave surface, a convex surface or an edge within the region (The surface feature depicted in Fig. 9 is edge 11.).
Regarding claim 3, Hausler discloses the system of claim 1,
wherein the surface processing plan comprises a trajectory modification that accounts for the presence of a surface feature identified in the approximated surface topography (“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)… Also in this case, an attempt may be made to avoid an overlap by use of a transformation (shift, rotation, scaling, skew) of the respective template. This situation is illustrated in FIG. 9” [0042]. Thus, the trajectory template is modified to account for the presence of an edge, i.e., surface feature which may not be machined.),
wherein the trajectory modification comprises a discontinuous trajectory (“When the machining paths belonging to different machining processes R.sub.j R.sub.k, lie too closely side by side such an overlap may occur. Whether an overlap (i.e. a collision of two machining processes) will occur can be determined during the projection (FIG. 5, step S8). …in the event of two neighboring defects D.sub.i, D.sub.k of different categories, it may be checked (with the use of software), whether an overlap can be avoided when applying a transformation to the respective templates (see FIG. 8)” [0041]. Thus, the transformation of the template shown in Fig. 8(a) is modified such that two discontinuous trajectories are projected over respective defects.).
Regarding claim 4, Hausler discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the trajectory modification moves the trajectory away from an identified surface feature (“Whether this is the case (i.e. an overlap exists) may be checked during the projection of the template onto the surface of the CAD model (FIG. 5, step S8). Also in this case, an attempt may be made to avoid an overlap by use of a transformation (shift, rotation, scaling, skew) of the respective template. This situation is illustrated in FIG. 9… To calculate the machining path of the process for machining the defect D.sub.k, the machining path has been shifted and skewed in the present example to avoid an overlap with edge 11” [0042]. Thus, the path was modified such that it was shifted and skewed away from the edge, i.e., surface feature.).
Regarding claim 5, Hausler discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the trajectory comprises a series of waypoints through the region (“A machining process R.sub.j may include one or more machining steps each with one or more respective machining path templates X.sub.i. Each of the templates X.sub.i is composed of a set of points (at least two points) X.sub.i1, X.sub.i2, etc.” [0040]. Thus, the path is generated from a template which transforms the set of points, i.e., waypoints, which will be traversed by the machining process through the region.).
Regarding claim 6, Hausler discloses the system of claim 4,
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.), and
wherein the surface processing plan comprises a trajectory modification that accounts for the presence of a surface feature identified in the approximated surface topography (“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)… Also in this case, an attempt may be made to avoid an overlap by use of a transformation (shift, rotation, scaling, skew) of the respective template. This situation is illustrated in FIG. 9” [0042]. Thus, the trajectory template is modified to account for the presence of an edge, i.e., surface feature which may not be machined.),
wherein the trajectory modification is based on the identified surface feature (“Whether this is the case (i.e. an overlap exists) may be checked during the projection of the template onto the surface of the CAD model (FIG. 5, step S8). Also in this case, an attempt may be made to avoid an overlap by use of a transformation (shift, rotation, scaling, skew) of the respective template. This situation is illustrated in FIG. 9… To calculate the machining path of the process for machining the defect D.sub.k, the machining path has been shifted and skewed in the present example to avoid an overlap with edge 11” [0042]. Thus, the path was transformed such that the edge, i.e., surface feature, was considered in order to avoid any potential overlap with the edge.).
Regarding claim 8, Hausler discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the robotic arm executes the control signal and follows the trajectory (“Subsequently, the computer-assisted generation of a robot program for the robot-assisted machining of the at least one defect can be carried out” [0007]. Thus, the robot program which implements the planned trajectory causes the robot to execute the control signals for following the trajectory.).
Regarding claim 9, Hausler discloses a repair plan generation system for a defect on a worksurface (“Furthermore, a system for the automated detection of defects in a workpiece surface and generation of a robot program for the machining of the workpiece is described” [0012].), the system comprising:
a surface sampling receiver that receives a surface topography of the worksurface (“The system shown in FIG. 1 includes a data processing device 50 which, in one embodiment, is configured to (inter alia) localize defects and determine the mentioned three-dimensional topography of the localized defects (or defect candidates)” [0032]. Thus, the data processing device receives the surface topography.), the surface topography comprising an approximate surface topography of a surface 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, curvature images are used to estimate the 3D coordinates of the point clouds, thus generating a surface topography which comprises an approximate topography of a surface curvature.);
a defect indication receiver that receives an indication of a defect on the worksurface, proximate the surface curvature (As indicated above, the data processing device receives and localizes the indication of defects on the worksurface. Such worksurface approximations are determined based on surface curvatures, thus making the defects proximate the surface curvature.);
a robotic controller configured to, based on the defect indication, select a trajectory template for the worksurface (“The at least one defect is categorized based on the determined parameter set. That is, the defect is assigned to a defect category. A machining process stored in a database is selected in dependency of the defect category of the at least one defect. Each machining process is associated with at least one template of a machining path along which the defect is to be machined” [0011]. Thus, an indicated defect is assigned a category to which a trajectory template is determined. See Paragraph [0044] in which the data processing device which performs the trajectory selection additionally performs control of disclosed methods and thus will be determined as a robotic controller.),
a process constraint receiver that receives a parameter constraint for a robotic repair unit (“For each defect category K.sub.j a machining process R.sub.j for the robot-assisted machining of the surface defect is stored in a database (e.g. included in the memory of the data processing device 50 shown in FIG. 1). A machining process R.sub.j for the machining of a defect D.sub.i of a specific defect category K.sub.j is defined by a the tool to be used and the machining steps to be performed with the tool. A machining step is defined by one or more machining paths, which are defined by base points, a path velocity with which the machining paths are to be run through, as well as time and/or position-dependent trigger points on the machining paths at which specifiable actions may be triggered (e.g. change of process parameters such as, e.g., contact pressure, rotational speed, activation of a rotational and/or eccentric motion of the grinding tool and the like)” [0036]. Thus, the data processing device includes a memory which stores the parameter constraints for the machining path based on the tool being used and the severity of the defect.);
a trajectory modifier that modifies a trajectory template, wherein the trajectory modifier comprises a transformer that transforms the trajectory template into a transformed trajectory, based on the surface curvature (“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 which is further based on the surface curvature, 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. The projection comprises a series of transformations and therefore is performed using “a transformer”.);
a repair plan generator that generates a repair plan based on the transformed trajectory and comprises, along the transformed trajectory, set process conditions (“A machining step is defined by one or more machining paths, which are defined by base points, a path velocity with which the machining paths are to be run through, as well as time and/or position-dependent trigger points on the machining paths at which specifiable actions may be triggered (e.g. change of process parameters such as, e.g., contact pressure, rotational speed, activation of a rotational and/or eccentric motion of the grinding tool and the like)” [0036]. Thus, the machining paths which are transformed as described above, include a plan with the defined trajectory and process conditions which the tool should adhere to when performing the machining.), the repair plan generator comprising:
a force modulator that sets an applied force of a tool on the worksurface; a velocity modulator that sets a velocity at which the tool moves across the worksurface; a tool speed modulator that sets a rotational speed of the tool (“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]. The controller sets the contact pressure (force), tool velocity, and tool rotational speed. Thus, the controller may serve as each of the force modulator, the velocity modulator, and the tool speed modulator.); and
a control signal generator that communicates the generated repair plan to a robot controller that automatically implements the repair plan and completes a defect repair based on the repair plan (“…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. Also see [0033] as disclosed above which describes the controller setting the trajectory for the machining performed by the robot.).
Regarding claim 10, Hausler discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the transformer:
projects the surface feature into a 2-dimensional plane (The defect, i.e., surface feature, is projected into a defect plane which is a two dimensional plane defined by the vector which is normal to the center of the defect (see [0035]).);
maps the trajectory template to a boundary; transforms the mapped trajectory template, wherein transforming comprises modifying a trajectory parameter (“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). Whether this is the case (i.e. an overlap exists) may be checked during the projection of the template onto the surface of the CAD model (FIG. 5, step S8). Also in this case, an attempt may be made to avoid an overlap by use of a transformation (shift, rotation, scaling, skew) of the respective template… To calculate the machining path of the process for machining the defect D.sub.k, the machining path has been shifted and skewed in the present example to avoid an overlap with edge 11” [0042]. Thus, the machining path template is mapped to the surface boundary, which is in this case the edge 11, and the trajectory is transformed based on this initial mapping and the analysis of the edge position.); and
mapping the transformed trajectory to the surface topography, resulting in the transformed trajectory (Fig. 9 shows the resulting transformed trajectory for D.sub.k mapped to the surface.).
Regarding claim 12, Hausler discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the surface sampling receiver receives surface samples from a camera (“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, the inspection of the surface which receives the samples to be analyzed is performed by a camera.).
Regarding claim 13, Hausler discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the 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 14, 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, approximating a surface topography, wherein modeling comprises approximating the surface based on sampling (“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. As described above, the sampling of the worksurface generates the point cloud data, and thus the modeling approximates the surface based on the sampling (see [0028]).);
modifying a surface processing trajectory, using a transformer, based on the detected surface topography, wherein the transformed surface processing trajectory comprises a continuous curve through a series of waypoints (“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. The projection comprises a series of transformations and therefore is performed using “a transformer”. Additionally, it can be seen in Fig. 6-8 that the path is a continuous curve for each machining area through a series of preselected points, i.e., waypoints.);
generating a repair plan comprising, at each of the waypoints:
an applied force; a velocity; a rotational tool speed of a tool; (“A machining step is defined by one or more machining paths, which are defined by base points, a path velocity with which the machining paths are to be run through, as well as time and/or position-dependent trigger points on the machining paths at which specifiable actions may be triggered (e.g. change of process parameters such as, e.g., contact pressure, rotational speed, activation of a rotational and/or eccentric motion of the grinding tool and the like)” [0036]. Thus, throughout the machining path, i.e., repair plan, there are set pressure (force), velocity, and rotational speed of the tool which may change depending on which waypoint triggers a transition.) and
a tool angle with respect to the worksurface (“The tool is aligned by the manipulator 24 such that the force F, which is exerted by tool 24 onto the surface of workpiece 10, is always effective normal to the direction of the respective surface (n.sub.i1′ or n.sub.i2′)” [0043]. Thus, the tool will analyze the surface such that the alignment, i.e., angle, results in a pressure force normal to the surface.); and
transmitting a control signal to a robotic material removal system, wherein the control signal comprises the repair plan (“…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 15, Hausler discloses the method of claim 14,
wherein the transformer transforms the surface processing trajectory by:
projecting the surface processing trajectory into a 2-dimensional plane (“These machining paths are stored (e.g. in the mentioned database) in the form of templates, which are defined in a plane (the defect plane) independently from the actual geometry of the workpiece” [0039]. Thus, the template is projected onto the 2-dimensional plane which is the defect plane.);
mapping the surface process trajectory to a surface boundary within the surface topography; transforming the mapped surface process trajectory; (“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). Whether this is the case (i.e. an overlap exists) may be checked during the projection of the template onto the surface of the CAD model (FIG. 5, step S8). Also in this case, an attempt may be made to avoid an overlap by use of a transformation (shift, rotation, scaling, skew) of the respective template… To calculate the machining path of the process for machining the defect D.sub.k, the machining path has been shifted and skewed in the present example to avoid an overlap with edge 11” [0042]. Thus, the machining path template is mapped to the surface boundary, which is in this case the edge 11, and the trajectory is transformed based on this initial mapping and the analysis of the edge position.) and
mapping the transformed trajectory to a surface topography of the worksurface to obtain the transformed surface processing trajectory (Fig. 9 shows the resulting transformed trajectory for D.sub.k and its associated interpolation mapped to the surface.).
Regarding claim 16, Hausler discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising:
smoothing the mapped surface process trajectory (The path is formed using spline interpolation, which is smoothing (see [0039] and [0040]).).
Regarding claim 18, Hausler discloses the method of claim 14, wherein a 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.).
Regarding claim 19, Hausler discloses the method of claim 14, wherein sampling a surface comprises a vision system imaging the surface (“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, the inspection of the surface, i.e., sampling, is performed by a camera which images the worksurface.).
Regarding claim 20, Hausler discloses the method of claim 14,
wherein the applied force at each of the waypoints is a modified applied force, modified by a force modifier based on the surface topography (“During the machining, the machining tool is always pressed onto the workpiece 10 perpendicular to the workpiece surface with a defined, adjustable force” [0039]. Thus, the force applied to the machining path is adjustable, i.e., modified, based on the angle at which the tool must be rotated in order to be pressed perpendicular to the surface.).
Regarding claim 21, Hausler discloses the method of claim 14,
wherein modifying the surface processing trajectory comprises a homeomorphic transformation of a trajectory template (“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]. Such shifting, rotating, scaling, and skewing are homeomorphic transformations.).
Regarding claim 22, Hausler discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the modified trajectory comprises a discontinuous trajectory (“When the machining paths belonging to different machining processes R.sub.j R.sub.k, lie too closely side by side such an overlap may occur. Whether an overlap (i.e. a collision of two machining processes) will occur can be determined during the projection (FIG. 5, step S8). …in the event of two neighboring defects D.sub.i, D.sub.k of different categories, it may be checked (with the use of software), whether an overlap can be avoided when applying a transformation to the respective templates (see FIG. 8)” [0041]. Thus, the transformation of the template shown in Fig. 8(a) is modified such that two discontinuous trajectories are projected over respective defects.).
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17, Hausler teaches the method of claim 14, wherein modeling the surface comprises:
approximating the surface at each of a plurality of sampled surface locations (“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 three-dimensional structure (topography), is approximated at each of the sampled locations which generates the point cloud of the surface.);
approximating a curvature at each of the sampled surface locations (“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.); …
Hausler does not teach …detecting a surface feature based on a derivative of the approximated curvature.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …detecting a surface feature based on a derivative of the approximated curvature (Section 3.5 (Pages 270-271) discusses extracting ridge points, i.e., surface features of a region, based on a 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 calculated derivative of curvature for the extraction of surface features 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 approximation for the derivative of a curvature as taught by Kim reduces computational time for such an approximation (Kim, Page 269).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights