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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9-13 remain pending. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimbara et al (US 5625197 A) in view of Satat (US 20220168898 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Shimbara and Satat respectively)
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Miyazaki teaches a robot system (See at least Shimbara Column 3 lines 8-26 and Figure 1, the surface inspection system is interpreted as a robot system) comprising:
a robot (See at least Shimbara Column 3 lines 39-46) comprising:
…a working unit including a line or area camera (See at least Shimbara Column 2 lines 50-51, Column 3 lines 39-56, and Figure 4, the image pick-up devices are interpreted as an area camera), on a distal end part of the…robot (See at least Shimbara Column 3 lines 39-56, and Figure 1, the image pick-up devices are at the distal end of the robot)…, and configured to work with a workpiece (See at least Shimbara Column 3 lines 39-56, and Figure 1, the image pick-up devices work with a vehicle body/workpiece);
a robot controller configured or programmed to control movement of the…robot…(See at least Shimbara Column 3 line 57-Column 4 line 21 and Figure 1, the robot drive unit is interpreted as the robot controller), and to direct the…robot…to move the working unit relative to the workpiece along a …curve along a surface of the workpiece (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-57 and Figure 3c, the robot moves the working unit/image pick-up devices relative to the workpiece/vehicle body along the curved surface);
a signal output configured to output a signal based on a relative moving amount of the working unit for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece in movement of the workpiece or the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, and Column 7 lines 10-25, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs a pulse signal based on the relative moving amount/scanning interval of the working unit relative to the workpiece/vehicle body),…; and
a work controller configured or programmed to control working of the working unit with the workpiece (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 14-17, the robot control unit is interpreted as the work controller) based on the signal that is output by the signal output to direct the working unit to capture an image for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, Column 6 lines 14-19, and Column 7 lines 10-25, for each of the relative moving amount/scanning interval of the working unit, the signal output/pulse generator 24 directs the working unit to capture an image).
Shimbara fails to explicitly disclose the robot comprises a multi-joint robot arm including a plurality of joints, the plurality of joints including three pairs of two joints with each of the pairs of joints having two axes of rotation that are mutually orthogonal;
the working unit is moved…along a non-linear curve along a surface of the workpiece;
wherein the relative moving amount is based on focal positions of images to be captured by the line or area camera along the non-linear curve.
However, Satat teaches the robot comprises a multi-joint robot arm including a plurality of joints, the plurality of joints including three pairs of two joints with each of the pairs of joints having two axes of rotation that are mutually orthogonal (See at least Satat Paragraph 0071 and Figure 4);
the working unit is moved…along a non-linear curve along a surface of the workpiece (See at least Satat Paragraphs 0084, 0093, and Figure 7, the camera/working unit is moved along an arc/non-linear curve along the surface the workpiece);
wherein the relative moving amount is based on focal positions of images to be captured by the line or area camera along the non-linear curve (See at least Satat Paragraphs 0093, 0097, and Figure 7, the relative moving amount is based on focal positions 712, 714, and 716 of images to be captured by the area camera along the arc/non-linear curve).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Shimbara with Satat to have the relative moving amount be based on focal positions of images to be captured by the area camera along the non-linear curve. This modification, as taught by Satat, would allow the robot to move to each focal position for capturing an image along the non-linear curve and determine properties of the workpiece (See at least Satat Paragraphs 0093, 0097, and Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Shimbara teaches the work controller is configured or programmed to control the working of the working unit with the workpiece based on the signal output by the signal output as a trigger (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 14-17, and Column 4 lines 44-54, the signal output by the pulse generator/signal output is a trigger for the working unit/image pick-up devices to image the workpiece).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output outputs, based on relative movements of a plurality of positions of the working unit, a plurality of signals each of which corresponds to one of the plurality of positions of the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-57, Column 7 lines 10-25, and Figures 3c and 6, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs signals at each scanning interval for the entire surface of the vehicle, which is interpreted as a plurality of signals which correspond to a plurality of positions of the working unit).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output outputs the signal, which is output based on the relative moving amount of the working unit, by using a pulse signal for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, and Column 7 lines 1-25, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs the signal based on the relative moving amount/scanning interval by using the pulse signals from the pulse generators 21 and 22).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output comprises a first processor configured to generate the signal (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 37-54 and Figure 2, the signal generator 24 is the signal output, and signal generators have a processor) and the work controller comprises a second processor configured to control working of the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 14-17 and Figure 1, the robot control unit is the work controller, and control units/controllers have processors).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output comprises a first processor configured to generate the signal (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 37-54 and Figure 2, the signal generator 24 is the signal output, and signal generators have a processor) and the robot controller comprises a second processor configured to control the movement of the multi-joint robot arm (See at least Shimbara Column 3 line 57-Column 4 line 21 and Figure 1, the robot drive unit/controller, which is known in the art for having a processor, is used to control the movement of the robot).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimbara in view of Satat, and in further view of Tokutake et al (US 20050283275 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Tokutake)
Regarding Claims 2-3, modified Shimbara teaches the signal output outputs the signal, which is output based on the relative moving amount of the working unit (See at least Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, and Column 7 lines 1-25, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs the signal based on the relative moving amount/scanning interval;)
wherein the signal output outputs a predetermined pulse signal for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece (Shimbara Column 4 lines 22-54, and Column 7 lines 1-25, the pulse generator 24/signal output outputs a predetermined/image read-in pulse signal for each relative moving amount/scanning interval).
Modified Shimbara fails to disclose outputting the signal…by using a variable frequency pulse signal for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece.
However, Tokutake teaches using a variable frequency pulse signal for each of the relative moving amount of the working unit relative to the workpiece (See at least Tokutake Paragraphs 0018-0021, 0034, and 0059-0062, the moving distance of the manipulator/working unit on the front end corresponds to the number/frequency of pulses)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Shimbara with Tokutake to output the signal by using a variable frequency pulse signal. Tokutake teaches that each pulse signal corresponds to a moving distance, and the number/frequency of pulses indicates the total relative moving distance between the working unit and the workpiece (See at least Tokutake Paragraphs 0018-0021, 0034, and 0059-0066). By using a variable frequency pulse signal, as taught by Tokutake, the operator can rapidly and precisely control the relative movement between the working unit and workpiece (See at least Tokutake Paragraphs 0018-0021).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimbara in view of Satat, and in further view of Sato et al (US 20200101621 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Sato)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Shimbara fails to disclose the signal output outputs a relative position of the working unit relative to the workpiece based on the movement of the workpiece or the working unit.
However, Sato teaches the signal output outputs a relative position of the working unit relative to the workpiece based on the movement of the workpiece or the working unit (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0071-0080, and Figures 10-11, the distance/relative position between the working unit/TCP and workpiece is output based on the movement of the working unit/TCP on the distal end).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Shimbara with Sato to output a relative position of the working unit relative to the workpiece based on the movement of the working unit. By outputting a relative position between the working unit and the workpiece as the working unit arranged on the distal end is moved, as taught by Sato, the robot arm is controlled so that the working unit is within a reference range relative to the surface of the workpiece, which would reduce the risk of the working unit colliding with the workpiece while improving the quality of the result of the work (See at least Sato Paragraphs 0071-0080).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite the plurality of joints including three pairs of two joints with each of the pairs of joints having two axes of rotation that are mutually orthogonal, and the relative moving amount is based on focal positions of images to be captured by the line or area camera along the non-linear curve. Both these limitations are taught by newly added reference Satat, which teaches a robot arm with three pairs of joints, each pair of joints having axes of rotation that are orthogonal, and moving the area camera on the robot arm to focal positions along the non-linear curve to image the workpiece. Therefore, the claims still stand rejected under 103.
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 ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights