DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 12/30/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-15, and 17 are pending.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 12/30/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 17 has been renumbered claim 21.
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 5, 6, and 15 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 5, at lines 1-2, recites “a tool”. It is not clear if this if meant to refer to the tool of claim 1, or if this is intended to recite a new tool.
Claim 5 recites, at line 2:
…the method including moving the tool the working position in a…
This language is not clear. It is suggested that Applicant delete “the working position”; or amend --to-- between “the tool” and “the working position”.
Claim 5, lines 3-5 recite:
wherein the end effector is aligned in such a way that the tool is moved by a distance (d) of less than half a length of a longest diameter (I1) in a plane perpendicular to the working direction of the end effector.
It is not clear what the end effector is aligned with, or how aligning the end effector causes the tool to be moved by a distance (d) of less than half a length of a longest diameter (I1) in a plane perpendicular to the working direction of the end effector.
Separately, it is not clear if “of the end effector” is modifying “a longest diameter (I1)” or “the working direction”. It is suggested commas be added similarly to:
wherein the end effector is aligned in such a way that the tool is moved by a distance (d) of less than half a length of a longest diameter (I1), in a plane perpendicular to the working direction, of the end effector.
Claim 6 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 5.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "the U-shaped movement" and “the substantially U-shaped movement” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “a side-changing movement” at line 3. It is unclear whether this is referring to the side-changing movement of claim 12, or if this is intended to recite a new side-changing movement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toshimitsu (US Publication No. 2019/0084155).
Toshimitsu teaches:
Re claim 12. A construction robot comprising a manipulator with an end effector comprising a tool, and a controller, wherein the controller is set up to control the manipulator and/or the end effector including realizing at least one movement scheme comprising a side-changing movement (robot 20, end effector E, and processor 31, Fig. 1; paragraph [0065]: “the end effector E includes a finger portion, and holds the object by gripping the object by the finger portion. Instead of this, the end effector E may be configured to hold the object by lifting the object with suction of air, magnetic force, another jig, or the like”; paragraph [0077]: “a tool center point (TCP)”; and paragraphs [0081-0082], robotic arms have a right arm orientation and a left arm orientation, and may change the current arm orientation.).
Re claim 15. Wherein the controller is set up to control the manipulator and/or the end effector in the U-shaped movement, the substantially U-shaped movement and/or a side-changing movement, in which the end effector changes from one hemisphere (I, II) of a working area of the manipulator to another hemisphere (I, II) of the working area (robot 20 and processor 31, Fig. 1; and paragraphs [0081-0082], robotic arms have a right arm orientation and a left arm orientation, and may change the current arm orientation.).
Re claim 21. Wherein the controller is set up to control the manipulator and/or the end effector in a U-shaped movement, or a substantially U-shaped movement (Fig. 6).
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, 7-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavelos et al. (“Enabling Flexibility in Manufacturing by Integrating Shopfloor and Process Perception for Mobile Robot Workers”) in view of Toshimitsu (US Publication No. 2019/0084155) and Mikoshi et al. (US Patent No. 4,828,451).
Bavelos teaches:
Re claim 1. A method for controlling a construction robot which has a manipulator and wherein the manipulator has an end effector comprising a tool, wherein the end effector is moved from a starting position to a working position (Fig. 1, Fig. 4(a), Introduction “tool”; page 15, first full paragraph: “tool”), the method comprising:
- identifying an obstacle (page 2, last full paragraph: “(b) achieving detection of objects of varying geometrical characteristics with the required accuracy for the desired process (assembly, screw-fastening, drilling, etc.); (c) integrating the above applications end-to-end to generate motion paths toward the detected points of interest; and (d) combining the above with the use of static and dynamic obstacle information from a digital twin for real-time planning of collision-free trajectories and paths.”), and
- bypassing the identified obstacle (page 2, last full paragraph; page 8, last full paragraph: “During the movement of the robot, the algorithm also detects any dynamic obstacles in close proximity, and the navigation then calculates new paths if deemed necessary.”; and page 15, first full paragraph: “calculate collision-free paths for the robotic arms.”).
Bavelos fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) including realizing at least one movement scheme comprising a side-changing movement.
Toshimitsu teaches, at paragraphs [0081-0082], robotic arms may have a right arm orientation and a left arm orientation, and may change the current arm orientation. This allows such robotic arms to reach from different angles, or allows an “elbow” of the robot to avoid obstacles in a robot’s workspace, as taught by Mikoshi at the abstract.
In view of Toshimitsu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Bavelos, (re claim 1) including realizing at least one movement scheme comprising a side-changing movement, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Toshimitsu teaches robotic arms may have a right arm orientation and a left arm orientation, and may change the current arm orientation. This allows such robotic arms to reach from different angles, or allows an “elbow” of the robot to avoid obstacles in a robot’s workspace.
Bavelos further teaches:
Re claim 7. Including optically scanning a working area using a range meter (Fig. 2 robot perception with depth data; Fig. 3, various depth sensor on the left of the figure; Fig. 4 rc_visard 65; and page 8, section 3.2.1, first paragraph, laser scanners).
Re claim 8. Including moving the range meter during the optical scanning (Fig. 4 rc_visard 65; page 4, fourth full paragraph, “Laser scanners are used in combination with odometry for navigation of mobile robots.”).
Re claim 9. Including moving the end effector to at least two working positions one after the other in one hemisphere (I, II) of a working area of the construction robot (page 17, Table 2, the various processes are performed in a frontal hemisphere of the robot).
Re claim 10. Wherein on the basis of one working position as a starting position, a subsequent working position is selected such that the subsequent working position can be reached from the starting position without bypassing the obstacle (page 2, last full paragraph; page 8, last full paragraph: “During the movement of the robot, the algorithm also detects any dynamic obstacles in close proximity, and the navigation then calculates new paths if deemed necessary.”; and page 15, first full paragraph: “calculate collision-free paths for the robotic arms.”).
Re claim 11. A construction robot comprising a manipulator with an end effector and a controller, wherein the controller is set up to control the construction robot by the method of claim 1 (Figs. 1 and 3; and page 6, section 3, second paragraph).
Re claim 13. Wherein the range meter is a 3D camera (rc_visard 160, rc_visard 65 and RealSense D435, Fig. 3).
Re claim 14. Including moving the end effector to at least two working positions of the working area of the manipulator of the construction robot (page 17, Table 2, the various processes are performed at different working positions).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavelos et al. (“Enabling Flexibility in Manufacturing by Integrating Shopfloor and Process Perception for Mobile Robot Workers”) as modified by Toshimitsu (US Publication No. 2019/0084155) and Mikoshi et al. (US Patent No. 4,828,451) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kirsten (US Publication No. 2016/0008979).
The teachings of Bavelos have been discussed above. Bavelos fails to specifically teach: (re claim 3) wherein the at least one movement scheme corresponds to a U-shaped movement or a substantially U-shaped movement.
Kirsten teaches, at Fig. 5 and paragraph [0036], bypassing objects along a path of a robot using a U-shaped path profile. This avoids collisions between the robot and the object.
In view of Kirsten’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Bavelos, (re claim 3) wherein the at least one movement scheme corresponds to a U-shaped movement or a substantially U-shaped movement, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kirsten teaches bypassing objects along a path of a robot using a U-shaped path profile. This avoids collisions between the robot and the object.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bavelos et al. (“Enabling Flexibility in Manufacturing by Integrating Shopfloor and Process Perception for Mobile Robot Workers”) as modified by Toshimitsu (US Publication No. 2019/0084155) and Mikoshi et al. (US Patent No. 4,828,451) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sohn Lopez-Forment et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0061775).
The teachings of Bavelos have been discussed above. Bavelos fails to specifically teach: (re claim 5) wherein the end effector has a tool, the method including moving the tool the working position in a working direction and wherein the end effector is aligned in such a way that the tool is moved by a distance (d) of less than half a length of a longest diameter (I1) in a plane perpendicular to the working direction of the end effector.
Sohn Lopez-Forment teaches, at paragraphs [0104 and 0106], robotically processing a surface with a polishing tool having a 7 mm footprint by incrementally moving the tool by 0.2 mm. This allows for fine polishing with a robotically held end effector.
In view of Sohn Lopez-Forment’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Bavelos, (re claim 5) wherein the end effector has a tool, the method including moving the tool the working position in a working direction and wherein the end effector is aligned in such a way that the tool is moved by a distance (d) of less than half a length of a longest diameter (I1) in a plane perpendicular to the working direction of the end effector, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sohn Lopez-Forment teaches robotically processing a surface with a polishing tool having a 7 mm footprint by incrementally moving the tool by 0.2 mm. This allows for fine polishing with a robotically held end effector.
Bavelos further teaches:
Re claim 6. While moving to the working position, the manipulator is moved past the obstacle (page 2, last full paragraph; page 8, last full paragraph: “During the movement of the robot, the algorithm also detects any dynamic obstacles in close proximity, and the navigation then calculates new paths if deemed necessary.”; and page 15, first full paragraph: “calculate collision-free paths for the robotic arms.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the objections to the drawings, and the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 7, 8, 16, 18, 20, and the claims dependent thereon have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings, and the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 7, 8, 16, 18, 20, and the claims dependent thereon have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Toshimitsu (US Publication No. 2019/0084155) and Mikoshi et al. (US Patent No. 4,828,451) as discussed above.
Applicant argues, on page 7:
Bavelos does not disclose control of the robot arm, and there is no pointer leading one of skill in the art from Bavelos to realizing at least one movement scheme and positioning the end effector for collision-free movement (see, paragraph [0010] of the present application) and bypassing the obstacle, including realizing at least one movement scheme comprising a side-changing movement. One of skill in the art is not led from the teachings of Bavelos to the teachings of Toshimitsu.
However, Bavelos discloses obstacle avoidance at least at first full paragraph on page 15 which teaches calculating collision-free paths for the robotic arms. Toshimitsu teaches, at paragraphs [0081-0082], robotic arms may have a right arm orientation and a left arm orientation, and may change the current arm orientation. This allows such robotic arms to reach from different angles, or allows an “elbow” of the robot to avoid obstacles in a robot’s workspace, as taught by Mikoshi at the abstract.
Applicant remarks, on page 7:
In the environment of Toshimitsu, there is no need to bypass non-planned obstacles automatically based on observations. Furthermore, Toshimitsu does not teach an end effector comprising a tool. While Toshimitsu describes the orientation and position of axis AX5 with respect to AX1, the end effector itself does not change the relative position to its robot arm because AX5 is the longitudinal arm axis. Toshimitsu does not teach changing arm orientation, and particularly fails to teach identifying an obstacle, and bypassing the identified obstacle, including realizing at least one movement scheme comprising a side-changing movement, or a movement scheme corresponding to a U-shaped or a substantially U-shaped movement.
In the rejection of claim 1, the obstacle avoidance aspects are taught by Bavelos et al. and thus need not be taught by Toshimitsu. Obstacle avoidance is not claimed in claim 12, and thus need not be taught by a reference anticipating claim 12.
Toshimitsu teaches an end effector comprising a tool at end effector E, Figs. 1 and 2; at paragraph [0065] via “the end effector E includes a finger portion, and holds the object by gripping the object by the finger portion. Instead of this, the end effector E may be configured to hold the object by lifting the object with suction of air, magnetic force, another jig, or the like”; and at paragraph [0077]: “a tool center point (TCP)”.
Toshimitsu teaches realizing at least one movement scheme comprising a side-changing movement at least at paragraphs [0081-0082], which teach robotic arms have a right arm orientation and a left arm orientation, and may change the current arm orientation between this right arm orientation and this left arm orientation. A robotic arm may be used similarly to a human’s right or left arms. When a person is manipulating an object in front of them, their right and left elbows are extending in different directions - a robotic manipulator may similarly be oriented with its elbow joint(s) extending in different directions.
Mikoshi demonstrates that positioning the elbow of a robotic manipulator is a known method of avoid collisions.
Seraji (US Patent No. 5,430,643), at column 10, lines 40-60; column 13, lines 20-47; and Figs. 8a and 9, similarly teaches moving an elbow of a robotic manipulator to avoid a collision with an obstacle.
Arai (US Patent No. 4,308,584), at column 4, lines 9-21, similarly teaches twisting a robotic manipulator to avoid collisions with the external environment of the robot.
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 SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656