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 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation “…comprises, along the transformed trajectory, sets process conditions…” in line 10. Examiner ascertains that Applicant meant to write “…comprises, along the transformed trajectory, set process conditions…” and mistakenly included an s on the end of set.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “…and further comprising…” in line 1. The “and” in this limitation may be removed such that the language merely reads “…
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(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 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 1-6, 8, 10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 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 arm 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”.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the surface processing tool” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such processing tool has been defined in the claim, and as such it is unclear what processing tool is referred to. Examiner best interprets the limitation instead to be “the surface engaging tool” which is defined in the preceding clause of the limitation.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the transformation” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such transformation has been defined in either claim 4, claim 3, or claim 1 and as such it is unclear which transformation is being referred to. Examiner best interprets the transformation to simply mean the trajectory modification.
Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent on claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the trajectory template” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such trajectory template has been introduced in either claim 6, claim 4, claim 3, or claim 1. As such, it is unclear what template is being referred to. Examiner will interpret the claim to read generally as “a trajectory template”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the surface feature” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such surface feature has been introduced in either claim 10 or claim 9. As such, it is unclear which surface feature is being referred to. Examiner will read the claim generally as “a surface feature” such that any feature of the surface will be considered.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the interpolated trajectory” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such interpolation has been introduced in claim 15 or claim 14, and as such it is unclear when the trajectory is interpolated. Examiner will read the claim generally as “an interpolated trajectory”.
Claim 16 is rejected as being dependent on claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “approximating the surface at each of the plurality of sampled surface locations” in line 2. Given that there is the worksurface and the surface topography which are involved in the modeling step of the method, it is unclear which of these is meant when the surface is approximated. Examiner best interprets the limitation to mean the surface topography and will consider the limitation as such when reviewing the prior art.
Claim 17 further recites the limitation “the curvature” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such curvature has been defined in either claim 17 or claim 14 and as such it is unclear which curvature is being referred to. Examiner will read the limitation generally as “a curvature”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections provided herein.
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 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 engaging tool, which causes the grinder to contact/press, i.e., engage, the worksurface.); 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 for the region based on the approximated surface topography that comprises a 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 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.); or
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.); 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 transformation 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 transformed 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.);
a defect indication receiver that receives an indication of a defect on the worksurface (As indicated above, the data processing device receives and localizes the indication of defects on the worksurface.);
a process constraint receiver that receives parameter constraints 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 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. 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, sets process conditions, the repair plan generator (“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.) 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, 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, 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 interpolated 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, and 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 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.).
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 the 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).
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 copending Application No. 18/579, 411 (hereinafter “‘411”). 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 ‘411 as it compares to the i