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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/24/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025, with respect to 112(b) rejection of claims 11, 13, 14 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although claims are interpreted in light of specification, limitations not present in claims are not brough over from the specification for interpretation. Claim 10 does not narrow down what pose space and working space are. Furthermore, the claim does not limit what “a set of points in a working space” are. Therefore, arguments presented against 112(b) rejection are directed towards limitations not present in the claims. Under BRI, examiner interprets “a set of points” in claim 10 to be points representing a movement path of a kinematic. Therefore, the points themselves are stationary.
In view of above interpretation the following limitations are indefinite because points that represent a path do not move:
“the points move when traversing the trajectory” in claim 11
“relative points move when traversing the trajectory“ in claim 13
“displacements experienced by the points when traversing one of the path sections” in claim 14
Applicant is suggested to amend the claims to narrow down the BRI to overcome the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025, with respect to 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated : Gaschler does not show a measurement of the speed of the kinematic based on a metric of the pose space that is based on a set of points in the working space
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although claims are interpreted in light of specification, limitations not present in claims are not brought in from the specification. Limitation as argued by applicant above is not present in the claim.
Examiner deems the argument directed towards following limitations, therefore, will respond pertaining to them.
Gaschler teaches:
determining the trajectory based on the path such that, when the kinematic traverses the trajectory, a pose speed that is based on a metric is less than or equal to the maximum speed ([0061], disclosing initial Cartesian path generally has no notion of velocity or time. [0068], disclosing maximizing velocity of robot without exceeding dynamic limits. [0069], disclosing adjusted velocity profile is a function from distance travelled along the path to speed. [0011], disclosing dynamic limits of the robot can include a maximum joint position, a maximum joint velocity, a maximum joint acceleration, a maximum Cartesian position, a maximum Cartesian velocity, a maximum Cartesian acceleration, or a jerk limit. Velocity is vector representation of speed),
wherein the metric is based on the set of points and is a metric of the pose space that defines distances between poses ([0060], disclosing optimize the Cartesian path by considering multiple paths and selecting a path that best minimizes a path optimization cost function. The path optimization cost function can include one or more of a deviation cost, an orientation cost, a singularity cost, and a variation cost. The deviation cost is associated with a distance between the location of the end effector and the goal path. Location of end effector is a pose and goal path itself represents multiple poses. [0061], disclosing cartesian path is approximated with discrete distance and time series. [0069], disclosing Cartesian path is a function from distance travelled along the path to a Cartesian pose. And adjusted velocity profile is a function from distance travelled along the path to speed. Additionally, [0041], disclosing optimize the initial Cartesian path to follow the goal path while fulfilling one or more process requirements 183 defined for the process. Process requirements may include rotation limits, distance limits and deviation limits).
Therefore, Gaschler teacher of generating a Cartesian path (represented as points), the path itself is generated based on a cost i.e., a metric. The cost itself is distance between pose of end effector i.e., kinematic and poses along a path. Furthermore, velocity is optimized to not exceed a maximum limit, and velocity itself it function of path.
Therefore, Gaschler teaches limitations argued by applicant. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 11, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because:
Claim 11 recites “the points move when traversing the trajectory”
And claim 13 recites “relative points move when traversing the trajectory“
Points are locations in workspace and it is unclear how a location moves and how it traverses a trajectory. For example if a trajectory is (0,0) to (0,1) to (0,2) to (0,3). Something will move along all these points and none of points itself will move.
Similarly, claim 14 recites “displacements experienced by the points when traversing one of the path sections”. It is unclear how points are displaced when traversing a path. Furthermore, under BRI, the limitation is interpreted as ‘points traverse path sections’. Therefore, it is unclear how path sections are traversed by points.
Claim 15 is rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 14.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10-13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gaschler (US 20210339390).
For claim 10, Gaschler teaches: A method for determining a trajectory in a pose space of a kinematic, wherein the trajectory is to be traversed by the kinematic for a particular application (abstract, disclosing generating a trajectory for a robot) and the method comprises:
obtaining a maximum speed ([0011], disclosing dynamic limit for robot and one of the dynamic limit is maximum velocity), and
a path of the trajectory in the pose space ([0062], disclosing generating initial joint space trajectory);
determining, based on the application, a set of points in a working space of the kinematic (abstract, disclosing a cartesian path is generated. [0068], disclosing cartesian path has plurality of goal points); and
determining the trajectory based on the path such that, when the kinematic traverses the trajectory, a pose speed that is based on a metric is less than or equal to the maximum speed ([0061], disclosing initial Cartesian path generally has no notion of velocity or time. [0068], disclosing maximizing velocity of robot without exceeding dynamic limits. [0011], disclosing dynamic limits of the robot can include a maximum joint position, a maximum joint velocity, a maximum joint acceleration, a maximum Cartesian position, a maximum Cartesian velocity, a maximum Cartesian acceleration, or a jerk limit. Velocity is vector representation of speed),
wherein the metric is based on the set of points and is a metric of the pose space that defines distances between poses ([0060], disclosing optimize the Cartesian path by considering multiple paths and selecting a path that best minimizes a path optimization cost function. The path optimization cost function can include one or more of a deviation cost, an orientation cost, a singularity cost, and a variation cost. The deviation cost is associated with a distance between the location of the end effector and the goal path. Location of end effector is a pose and goal path itself represents multiple poses. [0061], disclosing cartesian path is approximated with discrete distance and time series. [0069], disclosing Cartesian path is a function from distance travelled along the path to a Cartesian pose. And adjusted velocity profile is a function from distance travelled along the path to speed. Additionally, [0041], disclosing optimize the initial Cartesian path to follow the goal path while fulfilling one or more process requirements 183 defined for the process. Process requirements may include rotation limits, distance limits and deviation limits).
Claim 18 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 10, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 11, Gaschler teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the trajectory corresponds to a time course of a position and orientation of the kinematic in accordance with the path, the points indicate respective positions in the working space relative to the position and orientation of the kinematic ([0031], disclosing adjusted velocity profile defines how to traverse the initial Cartesian path with respect to time. [0025], disclosing cartesian coordinates include positional and rotational coordinates. [0061], disclosing Cartesian path is a smooth function from distance travelled along the path to a Cartesian pose (e.g., position and orientation). In some implementation, the Cartesian path is approximated with discrete distance and time series. [0024], disclosing end effector 205 can be a tool, e.g., a welding device, spray gun, or a gripper, to name just a few examples. In case of welding device or spraying gun trajectory corresponds to how an end effector is controlled relative to points along the trajectory. See also [0039-0050]), and:
move along with the kinematic during traverse of the trajectory so that the relative positions with respect to the position and orientation of the kinematic do not change ([0039], disclosing goal path can represent a physical path on a typical workpiece that the end effector of the robot should follow as closely as possible given parameters of the process definition. For example, the goal path can be a path along an edge of a workpiece along which the robot will apply a deburring tool); and/or
the pose speed corresponds to a maximum speed among speeds at which the points move when traversing the trajectory ([0050-0057], disclosing process limits including maximum velocity of tool relative to path).
For claim 12, Gaschler teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the points correspond to a stationary area in the working space, and the pose speed corresponds to a maximum speed among speeds at which the points are swept by a space moving along with the kinematic ([0068], disclosing cartesian path, this path is represent through points in the working space and points are necessarily stationary. Furthermore adjusted velocity profile can be optimized by maximizing the velocity without exceeding the dynamic limits of the robot).
For claim 13, Gaschler teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the trajectory corresponds to a time course of a position and orientation of the kinematic in accordance with the path ([0061], disclosing Cartesian path is approximated with discrete distance and time series), the points contain relative points and absolute points ([0128-0133], disclosing path is optimized based on a cost deviation associated with a distance between the location of the end effector and the goal path. [0025], disclosing cartesian coordinates include positional and rotational coordinates. [0061], disclosing Cartesian path is a smooth function from distance travelled along the path to a Cartesian pose (e.g., position and orientation)),
wherein the relative points indicate respective positions in the working space relative to the position and orientation of the kinematic ([0040-0052], disclosing cartesian path is optimized to fulfil process parameters such as an angle of a rotation axis of the tip of the tool with respect to the surface of the workpiece (e.g., a tilt of the rotation angle); a distance between the normal to the tool and the surface of the workpiece; a distance between the orthogonal to the tool and the surface of the workpiece; a translational or angular velocity of the tool relative to the path; a translational or angular acceleration of the tool; a distance between the end effector and the goal path .[0025], disclosing cartesian coordinates include positional and rotational coordinates. [0061], disclosing Cartesian path is a smooth function from distance travelled along the path to a Cartesian pose (e.g., position and orientation)), and:
move along with the kinematic when traversing the trajectory so that the relative positions with respect to the position and orientation of the kinematic do not change ([0040-0052], disclosing cartesian path is optimized to fulfil process parameters such as an angle of a rotation axis of the tip of the tool with respect to the surface of the workpiece (e.g., a tilt of the rotation angle); a distance between the normal to the tool and the surface of the workpiece; a distance between the orthogonal to the tool and the surface of the workpiece; a translational or angular velocity of the tool relative to the path; a translational or angular acceleration of the tool; a distance between the end effector and the goal path. Depending on intended use of invention maintaining relative positions is necessary. [0058], disclosing a deburring tool); and/or
the absolute points correspond to a stationary area in the working space ([0068], disclosing cartesian path, this path is represent through points in the working space and points are necessarily stationary. Furthermore adjusted velocity profile can be optimized by maximizing the velocity without exceeding the dynamic limits of the robot), and the pose speed corresponds to a maximum speed among speeds with which:
the relative points move when traversing the trajectory ([0005], disclosing find a sequence of valid configurations that moves an end effector of a robot along a goal path); and
the absolute points are each swept by a space that moves along with the kinematic ([0005], disclosing find a sequence of valid configurations that moves an end effector of a robot along a goal path).
For claim 16, Gaschler teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the trajectory is determined so that when the kinematic traverses the trajectory: a metric-based pose acceleration is less than or equal to a predetermined maximum acceleration, and/or a metric-based pose jerk is less than or equal to a predetermined maximum jerk ([0011], disclosing automatically generate a trajectory to follow the goal path while also remaining within dynamic limits of the robot. For example, the dynamic limits of the robot can include a maximum joint position, a maximum joint velocity, a maximum joint acceleration, a maximum Cartesian position, a maximum Cartesian velocity, a maximum Cartesian acceleration, or a jerk limit).
For claim 17, Gaschler teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein the set of points is determined based on a position of a tool ([0025], disclosing Cartesian pose is defined by a location and an orientation of a component of the robot, e.g., the end effector) and/or work coordinate system ([0038], disclosing Each Cartesian pose can be defined by a location of the end effector of the robot within a particular coordinate system), and/or of a pivot point.
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 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaschler in view of Lee (US 20220371195).
For claim 14, Gaschler teaches: The method according to claim 10, wherein determining the trajectory comprises: dividing the path into path sections ([0061], disclosing Cartesian path is approximated with discrete distance and time series, or with higher-order approximation using B-splines);
estimating a maximum displacement among the displacements experienced by the points when traversing one of the path sections ([0040-0050], disclosing path is optimized to fulfill process requirements. And one of the requirement is distance between the end effector and goal path. [0128], disclosing a cost deviation associated with a distance between the location of the end effector and the goal path);
determining the trajectory such that the path section is traversed in
Although maximizing velocity leads to shortest cycle time, Gaschler does not explicitly teach estimating, based on the maximum speed and the estimated maximum displacement, a time duration in which the path section is to be traversed when traversing the trajectory
Lee teaches estimating, based on the maximum speed and the estimated maximum displacement, a time duration in which the path section is to be traversed when traversing the trajectory (abstract, disclosing adjusting trajectory of root movement. [0020], disclosing improving motion paths to increase speed to reduce cycle time. Optimization of the motion path can improve efficiency in operation of the robot in terms of speed of completing a task, for example, if the motion path is optimized for time. [0060], disclosing optimization parameters can be chosen as constraints for making adjustments to the programed pathway. Example optimization parameters include (i) time. As time is an optimization parameter, it is necessary estimated)
Lee and Gaschler are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., optimizing robot trajectory. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Gaschler to estimating, based on the maximum speed and the estimated maximum displacement, a time duration in which the path section is to be traversed when traversing the trajectory as taught by Lee to improve efficiency of operation of the robot.
For claim 15, modified Gaschler teaches: The method according to claim 14, wherein the maximum displacement is estimated based on displacements of one or more of the points located on the surface of a space volume corresponding to the points ([0058], disclosing a maximum permitted deviation for deburring application. [0060], disclosing optimizing path that best minimizes a path optimization cost function. The deviation cost is associated with a distance between the location of the end effector and the goal path. [0001], disclosing specification relates to trajectory planning for path-based applications. An example of a path-based application for a robot is for the robot to dispense glue along a curved zig-zag path over a non-flat surface of a workpiece. In another example, the path-based application can be to have the robot deburr rough edges along a sequence of curved edges on a workpiece).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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