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 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 1-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “slice speed” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “speed of slice,” while the accepted meaning is “no common term in art is found”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Specification (submitted on 02/23/2024) does not define ‘slice speed’ for one with ordinary skill in the art to interpret/understand what the term means. Slices of a point cloud model are cross section chunk of an object model. As Illustrated in the following image, point cloud model of a building is generated and slice is the vertical rectangle. Slice width is how thick the rectangle cross section is, slice angle is angle is of the slice with respect to an axis, in case of the example below the angle is 90 degrees from ground. Slice speed may be interpreted as how fast a slice is generated, how fast point cloud data is captured, how fast a slice moves through entire point cloud. However, all three interpretations do not affect the slice itself in terms of shape, size orientation etc.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xie (CN 113593040) teaches of moving step length of point cloud slice such that a slice with larger width traverses all the points faster that a slice with smaller width (see page 8). However, it is not slice speed exclusively, instead slice width that leads to faster algorithm execution. Even by taking Xie into consideration, it is unclear how “a slice is defined by slice speed” (as claimed) because Xie.
Furthermore, in Non-patent literature (AI overview in Google Search for ‘Point Cloud Slice Speed’), “point cloud slice speed” discloses “factors like data size, complexity, and the algorithms and hardware used”. And this reference is also from an NPL published after filing date of claimed invention. Therefore, the term was not common at time of filing the claimed invention.
As , the term “slice speed” was not common at time of filing the claimed invention and the applicant has not provided a definition, examiner deems the term indefinite.
For examining purpose, examiner interprets “wherein each of the slices is defined by a slice angle, a slice width, and a slice speed” as “wherein each of the slices is defined by a slice angle, and a slice width
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations, hence are similarly rejected and interpreted.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hvass(US 20100143089) in view of Kong (CN 113171913) and Anderson (US 20240149450).
Examiner’s Note: Phil (NPL 3D Viewer Point Cloud Sections is relied on as evidentiary art to establish that slicing point cloud necessitates slice angle and slice width).
For claim 1, Hvass teaches: A system for controlling a 3D scanner and a painting robot to spray paint an object comprising an object surface ([0003-0004], disclosing a programmable robot. [0041], disclosing a scanner to generate an array of points corresponding to the complex three-dimensional surface. Abstract, disclosing a system, method and article which may be configured to autonomously dispense a medium onto a relatively large surface. [0022], disclosing end effector to have a paint spray gun), the painting robot comprising an end effector adapted to hold or comprising a paint spray gun ([0022], disclosing end effector to have a paint spray gun), the system comprising:
a controller ([0026], disclosing a controller 110) comprising: a processor operatively connected to the 3D scanner and the painting robot ([0026], disclosing controller 110 may be configured to receive and/or store image data and/or surface data. [0027], disclosing controller 110 may be configured to provide position and/or orientation commands to the base 130, manipulator 133 and/or end-effector 135 and/or dispensing commands to the end-effector); and
a memory comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by the processor ([0021], disclosing a controller may be understood to include pre-programmed hardware elements, firmware and/or a combination of hardware, software and firmware) to implement a method comprising:
controlling the 3D scanner to scan the object to generate the point cloud model of the object surface ([0041], disclosing a scanner to generate an array of points corresponding to the complex three-dimensional surface. [0026], disclosing controller 110 may be configured to receive and/or store image data and/or surface data. [0039], disclosing surface data may be defined using point cloud);
based on the point cloud model of the object surface, determining an optimized painting trajectory defined by
based on the optimized painting trajectory, controlling actuation of the painting robot to paint the object surface ([0027], disclosing controller 110 may be configured to provide position and/or orientation commands to the base 130, manipulator 133 and/or end-effector 135 and/or dispensing commands to the end-effector. [0008], disclosing commanding the end-effector to dispense the medium onto the surface).
Hvass teaches of using point cloud of surface to generate a trajectory, but does not disclose determining an optimized painting trajectory defined by slices of the point cloud model
wherein each of the slices is defined by a slice angle, a slice width, and a slice speed.
Kong teaches determining an optimized painting trajectory defined by slices of the point cloud model, wherein each of the slices is defined by a slice angle, a slice width, and a slice speed (abstract, disclosing spraying path generating method based on three dimensional point clout. And using point cloud slicing algorithm to generate the spraying path. Page 3, disclosing generating a plurality of slice planes with equal distance in the main characteristic direction z axis. A point cloud slide necessarily has a width and an angle with respect to a plane)
Kong and Hvass are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., generating spraying paths based on point cloud. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Hvass to determining an optimized painting trajectory defined by slices of the point cloud model, wherein each of the slices is defined by a slice angle, a slice width, and a slice speed as taught by Kong to accurately generate a path for efficiently covering the surface
Hvass also does not teach: wherein determining the optimized painting trajectory comprises applying an optimization algorithm to minimize a cost function defined by at least one cost parameter comprising at least one of:
an energy consumption cost based on a calculated amount of energy required for the painting robot to move the end effector along the slices; and
a process time cost based on a calculated amount of time required for the painting robot to move the end effector along the slices
Anderson teaches: determining the optimized painting trajectory comprises applying an optimization algorithm to minimize a cost function defined by at least one cost parameter ([0113], disclosing optimizing trajectory of a robot manipulator)comprising at least one of:
an energy consumption cost based on a calculated amount of energy required for the painting robot to move the end effector ([0113], disclosing optimizing trajectory to minimize energy consumption)
a process time cost based on a calculated amount of time required for the painting robot to move the end effector ([0113], disclosing optimizing trajectory to minimize time)
Hvass and Anderson are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., generating trajectory for end effector. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Hvass to wherein determining the optimized painting trajectory comprises applying an optimization algorithm to minimize a cost function defined by at least one cost parameter comprising at least one of:
an energy consumption cost based on a calculated amount of energy required for the painting robot to move the end effector along the slices; and a process time cost based on a calculated amount of time required for the painting robot to move the end effector along the slices as taught by Anderson to maximize robot efficiency.
Method of claim 8 and non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executable by a processor to implement a method of claim 15 recite limitations similar in scope to claim 1, hence are similarly rejected.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hvass(US 20100143089) in view of Kong (CN 113171913), Anderson (US 20240149450) and Kresse (20250196352).
For claim 2, modified Hvass teaches: The system of claim 1,
Hvass teaches of optimizing trajectory based on energy consumption cost or process time cost, but does not teach wherein the at least one cost parameter comprises both the energy consumption cost and the process time cost
Kresse teaches at least one cost parameter comprises both the energy consumption cost and the process time cost ([0081], disclosi8ng path is planned using optimization of a specified quality criterion, for example a mixed quality criterion in the form of a weighted sum of at least two of: the time required to traverse the path, the energy required to traverse the path)
Hvass and Kresse are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., robot path optimization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Hvass to wherein the at least one cost parameter comprises both the energy consumption cost and the process time cost as taught by Kresse to optimize trajectory using weighted sum cost criteria to minimize multiple cost aspects. Thereby achieving a trajectory that is overall optimized.
Claims 9 and 16 recite limitations similar in scope to claim 2, hence are similarly rejected.
For claim 5, modified Hvass teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one cost parameter comprises a plurality of cost parameters, (modification through Kresse teaches of teaches of a plurality of cost parameters)
Hvass does not explicitly teach wherein the cost function is further defined by a plurality of weighting factors, wherein each one of the weighting factors is applied to a respective one of the cost parameters
Kresse teaches wherein the cost function is further defined by a plurality of weighting factors, wherein each one of the weighting factors is applied to a respective one of the cost parameters ([0013], disclosing a particular quality criteria is preferably weighted. And [0081], disclosing a mixed quality criterion in the form of a weighted sum of at least two of: the time required to traverse the path, the energy required to traverse the path, the minimum distance between the robot, possibly with a robot-guided tool or piece, and the environment when traversing the path, the maximum velocity occurring when traversing the path, the maximum acceleration occurring when traversing the path, the maximum jerk occurring when traversing the path and/or other subcriteria)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Hvass to wherein the cost function is further defined by a plurality of weighting factors, wherein each one of the weighting factors is applied to a respective one of the cost parameters as taught by Kresse to prioritize weight criteria based on end objective and safety or robot.
Claims 12 and 19 recite limitations similar in scope to claim 5, hence are similarly rejected.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hvass(US 20100143089) in view of Kong (CN 113171913), Anderson (US 20240149450) and Chen (CN 115741688 A)
For claim 6, modified Hvass teaches: The system of claim 1,
Hvass does not teach: wherein the optimization algorithm comprises a genetic algorithm.
Chen teaches optimizing robot arm trajectory optimization using genetic algorithm (abstract, disclosing trajectory of robot is optimized based on improved genetic algorithm. Page 8 last paragraph, disclosing reducing operation time and energy consumption through improved genetic algorithm)
Hvass and Chen are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., robot trajectory optimization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Hvass to wherein the optimization algorithm comprises a genetic algorithm as taught by Chen to reduce operation time and energy consumption to maximum extent. Thereby improving robot efficiency.
Claim 13 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 6, hence is similarly rejected.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hvass(US 20100143089) in view of Kong (CN 113171913), Anderson (US 20240149450) and Meng (NPL, Enhanced Point Cloud Slicing Method for Volume Calculation of Large Irregular Bodies)
For claim 7, modified Hvass teaches: The system of claim 1,
Hvass does not teach: wherein the slices of the optimized painting trajectory have unequal widths.
Meng teaches slicing point cloud using unequal widths (page 21, disclosing an adaptive slicing technique, where the slice distance is automatically adjusted based on the gradient of area changes, can aid in retaining more intricate details within irregular bodies and enhance the precision of calculations)
As modified Hvass teaches of slicing point cloud of a body to be painted, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to further modify art of Hvass to wherein the slices of the optimized painting trajectory have unequal widths as taught by Meng for retaining more intricate details within irregular bodies and enhance the precision of calculations.
Claims 14 and 20 recite limitations similar in scope to claim 7 hence are similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Romeres (US 20240391095) teaches of optimizing robot trajectory based on amount of energy consumer. See [0093].
Telleria (US 20180283019) teaches of a painting robot. See abstract.
Langrishe (NPL, 3D Viewer Point Cloud Sections) is relied on as evidentiary art disclosing width and angle of point cloud slice.
He (CN 110743735 A) teaches of trajectory optimization algorithm as the quantitative analysis to workpiece surface paint film thickness model and paint film thickness deviation. However does not explicitly disclose “a paint coating thickness deviation cost based on a difference between a paint coating thickness” as recited in claim 3, or “a paint coating thickness variability cost based on a standard deviation of a paint coating thickness calculated” as recited in claim 4. See page 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656