DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits in response to communications filed by Applicant on May 10th, 2024. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and examined below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on 08/14/2024 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number 518 in Figure 5A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On Page 11 line 35, there appears to be a typographical error regarding the phrase “Bi is Ai is”. It is suggested that this phrase be corrected to “Bi is” for the purpose of improving clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050016671 A1 ("Sharp") in view of US 12168300 B2 ("Bellicoso").
Regarding claim 1, Sharp teaches a method of applying a tape onto an object surface, the method comprising (Sharp: Abstract, “A method of fastening a first curved part to a second curved part comprises placing the second part into a specified orientation in relation to a robotically controlled tape applicator, applying two-sided adhesive tape along a non-linear path over the surface of the second part, and placing the first part into registry with the second part to adhere to the adhesive tape. A robotic tape applicator comprises a computer adapted to control a robotic arm, guide means, tensioning means and cutting means.”, ¶ 0047, “A robotic tape applicator (1) is illustrated in the attached drawings. Prior to applying tape (3), a jig (not illustrated) is prepared into which a body part is placed. The three-dimensional profile of the body part is recorded and stored in computer memory. Using appropriate programming, a path for the tape in three dimensions is determined. The tape applicator head is then oriented so that, under the control of the computer, the head follows the predetermined path.”):
positioning a robot adjacent to the object surface (Sharp: ¶ 0047, “Using appropriate programming, a path for the tape in three dimensions is determined. The tape applicator head is then oriented so that, under the control of the computer, the head follows the predetermined path.”, ¶ 0094, “As the tape travels along the rollers, it is then guided down between the side cutting assembly (70) along (72) the tape guide to the nose (73). As the tape applicator head ( 68) travels along the predetermined path, the tape is laid down against the substrate and the removable tape backing removed from the tape (at the nose of the tape applicator as the tape is laid down) and drawn back along the outfeed roller (86) and the tape drive unit (88) by the tape drive unit and then sent to the disposal system, preferably a vacuum-like system.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that in order to apply the tape to the surface, the robot would have to be positioned adjacent to the surface.),
the robot comprising an end-effector (Sharp: ¶ 0049, “Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the two-sided tape (3) is rolled on a roller (5) which is mounted onto the applicator device (1) at a main bracket (18). Sensors (20) indicate the amount of tape remaining on a reel or roller. One side of the tape is adhesive while the other side is covered by a non-stick removable covering. The tape is guided along a path through the applicator device to the tape applicator head (7).” , ¶ 0062, “In a particular example of an embodiment of this invention, a Fanuc S-5™ Robot was chosen for the activator and tape application due to the shape and size of the part to be taped. On many of the parts, a large reach combined with the ability to manipulate the tool at a complex tilt is required. The six-axis, articulated robot was programmed based on the nominal contours of the 3-dimensional mathematical part profile data. This was used to generate the basic tool path for the part.”. The robot clearly includes an end-effector),
the end-effector comprising a tape applicator (Sharp: ¶ 0049, ¶ 0062. The end effector is clearly a tape applicator.);
determining a tape coverage path to apply the tape on the object surface (Sharp: ¶ 0047, “Using appropriate programming, a path for the tape in three dimensions is determined. The tape applicator head is then oriented so that, under the control of the computer, the head follows the predetermined path.”, ¶ 0062, “In a particular example of an embodiment of this invention, a Fanuc S-5™ Robot was chosen for the activator and tape application due to the shape and size of the part to be taped. On many of the parts, a large reach combined with the ability to manipulate the tool at a complex tilt is required. The six-axis, articulated robot was programmed based on the nominal contours of the 3-dimensional mathematical part profile data. This was used to generate the basic tool path for the part.”. A path for the robot to apply tape to is clearly determined using a 3D model of the part.);
and applying the tape onto the tape coverage path (Sharp: ¶ 0094, “As the tape travels along the rollers, it is then guided down between the side cutting assembly (70) along the tape guide (72) to the nose (73). As the tape applicator head ( 68) travels along the predetermined path, the tape is laid down against the substrate and the removable tape backing removed from the tape (at the nose of the tape applicator as the tape is laid down) and drawn back along the outfeed roller (86) and the tape drive unit (88) by the tape drive unit and then sent to the disposal system, preferably a vacuum-like system.”, ¶ 0096, “A second sensor (90), located at the nose of the tape applicator head, verifies that the tape has been applied correctly and that there are no bumps in the adhesive.”. The tape is clearly applied to the tape coverage path.).
Sharp does not teach and while moving the end-effector along a movement trajectory, determining a path feasibility of the tape coverage path;
updating the tape coverage path and the movement trajectory based on the determined path feasibility;
and applying the tape onto the updated tape coverage path.
Bellicoso, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and while moving the end-effector along a movement trajectory, determining a path feasibility of the tape coverage path (Bellicoso: Column 12 lines 26-60, “The trajectory generator 476 can pass the candidate trajectory to the trajectory checker 480, which can determine whether the candidate trajectory is feasible (e.g., within the mechanical and safety limitations of the robotic device). If the candidate trajectory is determined to be feasible, the trajectory checker 480 can provide the candidate trajectory to the motion control module 484. If the candidate trajectory is determined not to be feasible, the trajectory generator 476 can calculate a different candidate trajectory for the portion of the robotic device 460 to move from the initial state to the goal state. The different candidate trajectory can be based, at least in part, on one or more changed nonlinear optimization parameters.”, Column 14 lines 37-67, “FIG. 6 illustrates an example trajectory checker 600 of a robotic device, according to an illustrative embodiment of the invention. The trajectory checker 600 can receive the candidate trajectory and determine whether it is feasible. In some embodiments, the trajectory checker 600 runs a set of checks, including, e.g., whether certain metrics of the robot (such as joint limits, power output, or other metrics) have been violated and/or whether collisions have been detected module (e .g., the motion control module 484 shown and described above in FIG. 4). If the checks are not passed, the trajectory checker 600 may determine that the candidate trajectory is not feasible and can take different actions depending on the reason for the failure.”. The cited passages clearly show that the system is configured to determine if the trajectory of the robot is feasible.);
updating the tape coverage path and the movement trajectory based on the determined path feasibility (Bellicoso: Column 12 lines 26-60, “The trajectory generator 476 can pass the candidate trajectory to the trajectory checker 480, which can determine whether the candidate trajectory is feasible (e.g., within the mechanical and safety limitations of the robotic device). If the candidate trajectory is determined to be feasible, the trajectory checker 480 can provide the candidate trajectory to the motion control module 484. If the candidate trajectory is determined not to be feasible, the trajectory generator 476 can calculate a different candidate trajectory for the portion of the robotic device 460 to move from the initial state to the goal state. The different candidate trajectory can be based, at least in part, on one or more changed nonlinear optimization parameters.”, Column 17 lines 16-32, “FIG. 10 is a flowchart of an exemplary computer-implemented method 1000, according to an illustrative embodiment of the invention. At a first operation 1002, a computing system of a robot receives an initial state of the robot and a goal state of the robot. At a second operation 1004, the computing system determines, using nonlinear optimization, a candidate trajectory for the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state. At a third operation 1006, the computing system determines whether the candidate trajectory is feasible. If the candidate trajectory is determined to be feasible, the computing system provides the candidate trajectory to a motion control module of the robot. If the candidate trajectory is not determined to be feasible, one or more parameters of nonlinear optimization is changed, and the computing device determines a different candidate trajectory for the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state.”. The cited passages clearly show that the trajectory is updated when it is determined that the trajectory is not feasible.);
and applying the tape onto the updated tape coverage path (Bellicoso: Column 15 lines 7-35, “FIG. 7 illustrates an example motion control module 700 of a robotic device, according to an illustrative embodiment of the invention. The motion control module 700 includes a trajectory converter 704 and a motion control system 708. The trajectory converter 704 can receive the feasible candidate trajectory from the trajectory generator (e.g., the trajectory generator 500 shown and described above in FIG. 5), after being verified by the trajectory checker ( e.g., the trajectory checker 600 shown and described above in FIG. 6).”. The cited passage shows that the robot is configured to move according to the trajectory that is determined to be feasible. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this trajectory would be the updated trajectory in the case that the original trajectory was determined to be infeasible.).
Sharp teaches a method of applying a tape onto an object surface, the method comprising: positioning a robot adjacent to the object surface, the robot comprising an end-effector, the end-effector comprising a tape applicator; determining a tape coverage path to apply the tape on the object surface; and applying the tape onto the tape coverage path. Sharp does not teach while moving the end-effector along a movement trajectory, determining a path feasibility of the tape coverage path; updating the tape coverage path and the movement trajectory based on the determined path feasibility; and applying the tape onto the updated tape coverage path. Bellicoso teaches while moving the end-effector along a movement trajectory, determining a path feasibility of the tape coverage path; updating the tape coverage path and the movement trajectory based on the determined path feasibility; and applying the tape onto the updated tape coverage path. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the method of applying tape onto an object surface taught in Sharp with while moving the end-effector along a movement trajectory, determining a path feasibility of the tape coverage path; updating the tape coverage path and the movement trajectory based on the determined path feasibility; and applying the tape onto the updated tape coverage path taught in Bellicoso. Furthermore the method taught in Sharp is already configured to determine the tape coverage path, so modifying the method to determine the feasibility of the path and update said path based on feasibility as taught in Bellicoso would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method for applying tape onto an object surface wherein while moving the end-effector along a movement trajectory, determining a path feasibility of the tape coverage path; updating the tape coverage path and the movement trajectory based on the determined path feasibility; and applying the tape onto the updated tape coverage path
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method of applying a tape onto an object surface taught in Sharp with while moving the end-effector along a movement trajectory, determining a path feasibility of the tape coverage path; updating the tape coverage path and the movement trajectory based on the determined path feasibility; and applying the tape onto the updated tape coverage path taught in Bellicoso with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches further comprising obtaining, via a vision system, imaging data of the tape, the object surface, and the end-effector (Bellicoso: Column 12 lines 3-25, “During operation, the perception module 468 can perceive one or more objects for grasping (e.g., by an end-effector of the robotic device 460) and/or one or more aspects of the robotic device's environment. In some embodiments, the perception module 468 includes one or more sensors con figured to sense the environment. For example, the one or more sensors may include, but are not limited to, a depth camera, a LIDAR or stereo vision device, or another device with suitable sensory capabilities. In some embodiments, the perception module 468 can extract local planar regions ( e.g., using one or more plane fitting algorithms) to infer one or more surfaces of objects in view and/or obstacles for the robotic device 460 to avoid.”, Column 21 lines 14-29, “The sensor(s) 1110 may provide information indicative of the environment of the robotic device for the controller 1108 and/or computing system to use to determine operations for the robotic device 1100. For example, the sensor(s) 1110 may capture data corresponding to the terrain of the environment or location of nearby objects, which may assist with environment recognition and navigation, etc. In an example configuration, the robotic device 1100 may include a sensor system that may include a camera, RADAR, LIDAR, time of-flight camera, global positioning system (GPS) transceiver, and/or other sensors for capturing information of the environment of the robotic device 1100. The sensor(s) 1110 may monitor the environment in real-time and detect obstacles, elements of the terrain, weather conditions, temperature, and/or other parameters of the environment for the robotic device 1100.”. The cited passages clearly show that the system includes a vision system that is configured to capture image data regarding the robot, it’s environment, and the objects includes the object’s surfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the vision system described would capture image data of the end-effector and tape being applied to the object surface.).
Regarding claim 4, Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches further comprising verifying a coverage of the tape on the tape coverage path based on the imaging data (Sharp: ¶ 0096, “A second sensor (90), located at the nose of the tape applicator head, verifies that the tape has been applied correctly and that there are no bumps in the adhesive.”).
Sharp teaches verifying a coverage of the tape on the tape coverage path. Bellicoso teaches a vision system that captures image data of the end-effector and object surfaces in the robot’s environment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the second sensor used to verify the tape coverage taught in Sharp to be a vision system as taught in Bellicoso. Furthermore, the type of sensor used for the second sensor is not specified in Sharp and could therefore be substituted for a vision system without changing or introducing new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches further comprising verifying a coverage of the tape on the tape coverage path based on the imaging data.
Regarding claim 5, Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches wherein determining the path feasibility comprises determining at least one of a collision point and a curvature section on the tape coverage path (Bellicoso: Column 14 lines 37-67, “FIG. 6 illustrates an example trajectory checker 600 of a robotic device, according to an illustrative embodiment of the invention. The trajectory checker 600 can receive the candidate trajectory and determine whether it is feasible. In some embodiments, the trajectory checker 600 runs a set of checks, including, e.g., whether certain metrics of the robot (such as joint limits, power output, or other metrics) have been violated and/or whether collisions have been detected module (e .g., the motion control module 484 shown and described above in FIG. 4). If the checks are not passed, the trajectory checker 600 may determine that the candidate trajectory is not feasible and can take different actions depending on the reason for the failure.”. The cited passage clearly shows that the determination of feasibility includes collision checks.).
Regarding claim 6, Sharp in view of Bellicoso wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises detecting a deformation of the tape (Sharp: ¶ 0096, “A second sensor (90), located at the nose of the tape applicator head, verifies that the tape has been applied correctly and that there are no bumps in the adhesive.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that the system is configured to determine deformation in the tape by checking for bumps in the adhesive portion of said tap.).
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050016671 A1 ("Sharp") in view of US 12168300 B2 ("Bellicoso") in further view of US 10754337 B2 ("Keshmiri").
Regarding claim 2, Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches wherein determining the tape coverage path on the object surface further comprises receiving specifications from a user regarding the tape coverage path (Bellicoso: Column 12 lines 26-60, “In some embodiments, the trajectory generator 476 can additionally receive information from other input sources ( e.g., a user can specify information, such as an initial pose, a goal pose, and/or one or more parameters characterizing state).”, Column 13 lines 23-45, “In some embodiments, certain joint positions (e.g., initial joint positions) can be determined (e.g., measured using one or more sensors and/or specified by a user). … . In some embodiments, the trajectory transcriber 504 can include an application programming interface (API) for a user to specify one or more inputs.”. The cited passages clearly show that the trajectory of the robot is determined in part by receiving specifications about the trajectory from a user.).
Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach wherein determining the tape coverage path on the object surface further comprises receiving specifications from a user regarding the tape coverage path in a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object surface.
Keshmiri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the tape coverage path on the object surface further comprises receiving specifications from a user regarding the tape coverage path in a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object surface (Keshmiri: Column 9 lines 15-22, “In some embodiments, the user can specify the start and end points graphically via the user interface 110 within a three-dimensional virtual space.”, Column 11 lines 10-24, “The adjustment inputs can be received by the adjustment module 116 via the user interface 110, such as graphically in the same three-dimensional virtual environment in which the initial path is displayed.”. The cited passages clearly show that the user can specify aspects of the robot trajectory using a three-dimensional model.).
Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches a method for applying tape onto an object surface wherein determining the tape coverage path on the object surface further comprises receiving specifications from a user regarding the tape coverage path. Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach wherein determining the tape coverage path on the object surface further comprises receiving specifications from a user regarding the tape coverage path in a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object surface. Kashmiri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the tape coverage path on the object surface further comprises receiving specifications from a user regarding the tape coverage path in a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with wherein determining the tape coverage path on the object surface further comprises receiving specifications from a user regarding the tape coverage path in a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object surface taught in Kashmiri. Furthermore, the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso is already configured to allow a user to specify aspects of the robot trajectory and determine said trajectory using a 3D dimensional model of the object surface, so modifying the method to allow the user to specify aspects of the trajectory using the 3D model of the object surface as taught in Kashmiri would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method for applying tape onto an object surface wherein determining the tape coverage path on the object surface further comprises receiving specifications from a user regarding the tape coverage path in a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with wherein determining the tape coverage path on the object surface further comprises receiving specifications from a user regarding the tape coverage path in a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object surface taught in Kashmiri with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches further comprising sending a notice based on the determined path feasibility (Bellicoso: Column 13 lines 1-22, “If no candidate trajectory is deemed feasible, an error message can be generated. In such a situation, a higher level supervisory module (not shown) may be notified and govern next steps.”).
Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach further comprising sending a notice to a user based on the determined path feasibility.
Kashmiri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising sending a notice to a user based on the determined path feasibility (Kashmiri: Column 13 lines 16-34, “At step 210, the user can iteratively adjust the refined path by specifying additional adjustments at each iteration. During each iteration, the refined path can be graphically displayed to the user via the user interface 110 to encourage further fine tuning from the user until a desired path is created. For example, the refined path created at each adjustment iteration can be evaluated for certain errors ( e.g., singularity, collision and/or out-of-reach errors) using the error-checking routine 500 of FIG. 5 and the errors can be color-coded relative to the refined path to provide visual feedback to the user for the purpose of facilitating further adjustment.”. The cited passage clearly teaches providing a user with a visual notification indicating error along the trajectory.).
Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches a method of applying tape onto an object surface further comprising sending a notice based on the determined path feasibility. Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach further comprising sending a notice to a user based on the determined path feasibility. Kashmiri teaches further comprising sending a notice to a user based on the determined path feasibility. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with further comprising sending a notice to a user based on the determined path feasibility taught in Kashmiri. Furthermore, the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches sending an error message when no feasible path has been found, so modifying this method to send the notification to a user as taught in Kashmiri would only require simply changing the destination of the message. Additionally such a modification would not change or introduce new functionality to either. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method further comprising sending a notice to a user based on the determined path feasibility.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with further comprising sending a notice to a user based on the determined path feasibility taught in Kashmiri with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach further comprising receiving a feedback from the user and updating the tape coverage path based on the feedback.
Kashmiri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising receiving a feedback from the user and updating the tape coverage path based on the feedback (Kashmiri: Column 11 lines 10-24, “At step 206, in response to the displayed initial path, the user can provide inputs to adjust the initial path to eliminate these potential errors or otherwise fine tune the initial path. The adjustment inputs can be received by the adjustment module 116 via the user interface 110, such as graphically in the same three-dimensional virtual environment in which the initial path is displayed.”, Column 13 lines 16-34, “At step 210, the user can iteratively adjust the refined path by specifying additional adjustments at each iteration. During each iteration, the refined path can be graphically displayed to the user via the user interface 110 to encourage further fine tuning from the user until a desired path is created. For example, the refined path created at each adjustment iteration can be evaluated for certain errors (e.g., singularity, collision and/or out-of-reach errors) using the error-checking routine 500 of FIG. 5 and the errors can be color-coded relative to the refined path to provide visual feedback to the user for the purpose of facilitating further adjustment. As described above, the adjustment at each iteration can involve one of (i) adding a support point on the path from the previous iteration and changing the location of the support point, (ii) deleting a support point, (iii) adjusting a control handle associated with one of the support point(s), start point or endpoint of the path from the previous iteration, and/or (iv) changing one or more of the tessellation parameters.”. As can be seen from the cited passages, the system is clearly configured to update the trajectory based on user feedback.).
Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches a method for applying tape onto an object surface. Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach further comprising receiving a feedback from the user and updating the tape coverage path based on the feedback. Kashmiri teaches further comprising receiving a feedback from the user and updating the tape coverage path based on the feedback. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with further comprising receiving a feedback from the user and updating the tape coverage path based on the feedback taught in Kashmiri. Furthermore, the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso already teach allowing a user to make specifications regarding the trajectory of the robot, so modifying the method to allow the user to provide feedback in order to update the trajectory as taught in Kashmiri would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method for applying tape onto an object surface further comprising receiving a feedback from the user and updating the tape coverage path based on the feedback.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with further comprising receiving a feedback from the user and updating the tape coverage path based on the feedback taught in Kashmiri with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050016671 A1 ("Sharp") in view of US 12168300 B2 ("Bellicoso") in further view of US 7665498 B2 ("Bredl").
Regarding claim 7, Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises detecting a movement of the object surface during the application of the tape.
Bredl, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises detecting a movement of the object surface during the application of the tape (Bredl: Column 7 lines 3-12, “In box 202, the second step is whether the leading edge of a box is detected by the object presence sensor as it passes into the box sealing machine. In the third step 204, having detected a leading edge of a box, the control system begins to count the number of pulse responses per unit of time from the targets passing the tape dispensing proximity sensor as the rollers turn as tape is being applied to the box via the taping heads. In the fourth step 206, the trailing edge of the box intercepts the object present sensor and pulse counting concludes.”, Column 7 lines 13-16, “In the fifth step 207, the control system dwells until the trailing edge of the box is in proximity to the cutting mechanism of the taping head. If the object present sensor is placed near the cutting mechanism, this dwell time is very small.”, Column 7 lines 17-26, “In the sixth step 208, the pre-cut tape velocity V1 is calculated (V1=[Encoder Constant.times.Pulse Counts]/Elapsed Time) wherein the term "Encoder Constant.times.Pulse Counts" equals the length of tape dispensed and the "Elapsed Time" is the time period from when the object presence sensor 38 first detects the leading edge of box 20 until trailing edge of the box passes the object presence sensor and the object presence sensor no longer detects the box. The "Encoder Constant" is the linear distance of travel per single pulse count in inches/pulse from rotation of roller 64”, Column 7 lines 35-41, “In step nine 214, a post cut tape velocity V2 is calculated from an accumulation of pulses measured per unit time from the tape dispensing proximity sensor. Under normal operation with the tape cut properly, the angular velocity of the tape supply roll will slow down, generating fewer accumulated pulses per unit time from the tape dispensing proximity sensor.”. The cited passages clearly teach that the system determines a movement of the object during the application of the tape. The cited passages show that the system is configured to determine when an object moves into range of the taping mechanism as well as a movement speed of the object. This movement speed is used to determine when to begin taping and when to cut the tape, as the movement of the object affects the movement of the tape roll and can be used to determine when the trailing edge of the object has passed. The system is therefore clearly configured to determine a movement of the object.).
Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches a method of applying tape onto an object surface. Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises detecting a movement of the object surface during the application of the tape. Bredl teaches wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises detecting a movement of the object surface during the application of the tape. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have combine the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises detecting a movement of the object surface during the application of the tape taught in Bredl. Furthermore, the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso is already configured with sensors to gather information regarding the object and object surface to be interacted with, so modifying the method to determine a movement of the object surface as taught in Bredl would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises detecting a movement of the object surface during the application of the tape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises detecting a movement of the object surface during the application of the tape taught in Bredl with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050016671 A1 ("Sharp") in view of US 12168300 B2 ("Bellicoso") in further view of US 10513856 B2 ("Telleria").
Regarding claim 8, Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises determining environmental conditions including an ambient temperature (Bellicoso: Column 21 lines 14-29, “The sensor(s) 1110 may provide information indicative of the environment of the robotic device for the controller 1108 and/or computing system to use to determine operations for the robotic device 1100. For example, the sensor(s) 1110 may capture data corresponding to the terrain of the environment or location of nearby objects, which may assist with environment recognition and navigation, etc. In an example configuration, the robotic device 1100 may include a sensor system that may include a camera, RADAR, LIDAR, time of-flight camera, global positioning system (GPS) transceiver, and/or other sensors for capturing information of the environment of the robotic device 1100. The sensor(s) 1110 may monitor the environment in real-time and detect obstacles, elements of the terrain, weather conditions, temperature, and/or other parameters of the environment for the robotic device 1100.”. The cited passages clearly show the system can be configured to determine the ambient temperature.).
Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises determining environmental conditions including an ambient temperature and an ambient humidity.
Telleria, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises determining environmental conditions including an ambient temperature and an ambient humidity (Telleria: Column 4 lines 13-24, “The sensors 326, 346, 366 can comprise any suitable sensors in various embodiments including one or more sensors of humidity, temperature, air flow, laser curtains, proximity sensors, force and torque sensors, pressure sensors, limit switches, rotameter, spring and piston flow meter, ultrasonic flow meter, turbine meter, paddlewheel meter, variable area meter, positive displacement, vortex meter, pitot tube or differential pressure meters, magnetic meters, humidity sensor, conductivity sensor and depth or thickness sensors. The sensors 326, 346, 366 can comprise the same or different elements. Additionally, in some embodiments, one or more of the sensors 326, 346, 366 can be absent.”, Column 15 lines 34-59, “The computational planner can utilize one or more of the vision systems 324, 364 and/or sensors 326, 346, 366, including environmental sensors such as humidity, temperature, air flow sensors, and the like, to establish environmental conditions of a workspace and adjust task parameters accordingly.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method of applying tape onto an object surface wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises determining environmental conditions including an ambient temperature taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with wherein determining the path feasibility further comprises determining environmental conditions including an ambient temperature and an ambient humidity taught in Telleria with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results. The method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso is already configured with sensors to determine the ambient temperature and other environmental conditions, so modifying the system to determine the humidity taught in Telleria as well would only require the simple substitution/addition of known sensors. The modification would not have changed or introduced new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050016671 A1 ("Sharp") in view of US 12168300 B2 ("Bellicoso") in further view of US 8349106 B2 ("Miyamoto").
Regarding claim 11, Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach wherein applying the tape onto the object surface further comprises loading the tape into a tab mechanism and creating a tab at an edge of the tape.
Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein applying the tape onto the object surface further comprises loading the tape into a tab mechanism and creating a tab at an edge of the tape (Miyamoto: Column 5 lines 35-46, “As shown in FIG. 3, the holder 25 has a pair of hold blocks 26a and 26b that are pivotally supported at the proximal end thereof. Each of the hold blocks 26a and 26b has a holding surface 27 with a suction hole 28 formed therein. The suction hole is in communication with a suction device. Specifically, the holding surface 27 sucks a non-adhesive surface of the adhesive tape T fed out from the edge member 17. The hold block 26b pivots. Consequently, the holding surfaces of the hold blocks 26a and 26b unite with each other. That is, the adhesive tape T folds back inwardly, as shown in FIG. 5, to form a tab TB with adhesive layers joined to each other.”. The cited passages clearly teach a mechanism for creating a tab at the end of the tape.).
Sharp in view of Bellicoso teaches a method of applying tape onto an object surface. Sharp in view of Bellicoso does not teach wherein applying the tape onto the object surface further comprises loading the tape into a tab mechanism and creating a tab at an edge of the tape. Miyamoto teaches wherein applying the tape onto the object surface further comprises loading the tape into a tab mechanism and creating a tab at an edge of the tape. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities required to have modified the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with wherein applying the tape onto the object surface further comprises loading the tape into a tab mechanism and creating a tab at an edge of the tape taught in Miyamoto. Furthermore, the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso is configured to use a separate robot to create a tab at the beginning of a roll of tape prior to being loaded into the tape applicator robot (Sharp: ¶ 0078, “At the Heat Stake Station, a 5-axis robot was fitted with a tool changer and two end-effectors. The heat staking and tabbing end-effector were used to automatically apply the tabs to the end of the tape runs. The tabbing material was fed in using a knurled wheel to the correct length. The heat staking iron was attached to a slide cylinder assembly. After the tab material was payed out, the heat staking iron was extended to attach the tab. A cut off knife cut the tab to the correct length. The tabs were used to remove the protective covering on the outward face of the tape.”), so modifying the method to use the same robot that applies the tape to create the tab and create the tab multiple times in the execution of the tape application as taught in Miyamoto would not change or introduce new functionality. No inventive effort would have been required. The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a method wherein applying the tape onto the object surface further comprises loading the tape into a tab mechanism and creating a tab at an edge of the tape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combine the method taught in Sharp in view of Bellicoso with wherein applying the tape onto the object surface further comprises loading the tape into a tab mechanism and creating a tab at an edge of the tape taught in Miyamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Sharp in view of Bellicoso in further view of Miyamoto teaches wherein creating the tab comprises folding the edge of the tab (Miyamoto: Column 5 lines 35-46, “As shown in FIG. 3, the holder 25 has a pair of hold blocks 26a and 26b that are pivotally supported at the proximal end thereof. Each of the hold blocks 26a and 26b has a holding surface 27 with a suction hole 28 formed therein. The suction hole is in communication with a suction device. Specifically, the holding surface 27 sucks a non-adhesive surface of the adhesive tape T fed out from the edge member 17. The hold block 26b pivots. Consequently, the holding surfaces of the hold blocks 26a and 26b unite with each other. That is, the adhesive tape T folds back inwardly, as shown in FIG. 5, to form a tab TB with adhesive layers joined to each other.”. The cited passages clearly shows that the tape is folded to create the tab.).
Regarding claim 13, Sharp in view of Bellicoso in further view of Miyamoto teaches further comprises cutting the tape to create a new edge of the tape prior to creating the tab (Miyamoto: Column 5 lines 35-46, “As shown in FIG. 3, the holder 25 has a pair of hold blocks 26a and 26b that are pivotally supported at the proximal end thereof. Each of the hold blocks 26a and 26b has a holding surface 27 with a suction hole 28 formed therein. The suction hole is in communication with a suction device. Specifically, the holding surface 27 sucks a non-adhesive surface of the adhesive tape T fed out from the edge member 17. The hold block 26b pivots. Consequently, the holding surfaces of the hold blocks 26a and 26b unite with each other. That is, the adhesive tape T folds back inwardly, as shown in FIG. 5, to form a tab TB with adhesive layers joined to each other.”, Column 6 lines 50-55, “In this state, the cutter blade 21 moves into a cutting position below the adhesive tape T. The cutter blade 21 moves upward in the cutting position to pierce through the adhesive tape T for cutting. Upon completion of cutting the adhesive tape T, the cutter blade 21 moves downward to returns to its original standby position.”, Column 6 lines 56-62, “As shown in FIG. 9, the hold block 26a that suction-holds the rear end of the adhesive tape T pivots to unite the holding surfaces 27 of the hold blocks 26a and 26b. Here, the hold block 26a folds back the rear end of the adhesive tape T inwardly to adhere both of the adhesive layers. Consequently, the tab TB shown in FIG. 10 may be formed.”. One of ordinary skill in the art would see that tape is cut prior to making any tab on the tape. When the current length of tape has been placed, the tape is cut and the second tab on the current length of tape is created. Then after the current length of tape has been cut, the first tab on the next length of tape is created. Therefore, the tabs on the tape are created after the tape has been cut forming a new edge.).
Regarding claim 14, Sharp teaches an automated system to apply a tape onto an object surface, the system comprising (Sharp: Abstract, “A method of fastening a first curved part to a second curved part comprises placing the second part into a specified orientation in relation to a robotically controlled tape applicator, applying two-sided adhesive tape along a non-linear path over the surface of the second part, and placing the first part into registry with the second part to adhere to the adhesive tape. A robotic tape applicator comprises a computer adapted to control a robotic arm, guide means, tensioning means and cutting means.”, ¶ 0047, “A robotic tape applicator (1) is illustrated in the attached drawings. Prior to applying tape (3), a jig (not illustrated) is prepared into which a body part i