DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a nonfinal in response to an RCE filed on 06/09/2026. Claims 12-22 remain pending. Claims 12, 16, and 22 have been amended. Claim 23 has been added.
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.
Claim 12-14 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi et al (US 20190390952 A1) in view of Irie et al (US 20110222995 A1) and Sick AG (DE202016105502U1) (Hereinafter referred to as Wakabayashi, Irie, and Sick AG respectively)
Regarding Claim 12, Wakabayashi teaches a method for controlling a laser-optical detection system (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraph 0005 and Figure 2), comprising:
projecting laser light having a predetermined pattern in a predetermined wavelength range with a predetermined irradiation intensity onto an object (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0031-0032, and 0049, the laser light is projected onto the object with a predetermined pattern at a predetermined wavelength with a predetermined intensity);
optically detecting with a camera the pattern of laser light reflected from the object (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0040, 0047, and Figure 2, the camera/image capturing device detects the pattern reflected from the object), and recording an image of the reflected pattern through an optical system of the camera under predetermined exposure parameters (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0040, 0047-0049, and Figure 2, the camera/image capturing device records an image under predetermined exposure parameters/time);
determining a shape, position, and orientation of the object based on the recorded image of the reflected pattern (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0041, and 0053-0054, the posture, position, and shape of the object are determined based on the image);
…reducing a maximum irradiation intensity of the laser light as a function of a distance to a person in a critical spatial proximity to the laser light (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0019, 0049, 0060-0061, and Figure 5, the intensity/power of the laser is reduced to a second power when the person is present in critical spatial proximity to the laser); and
adjusting an exposure parameter of the camera as a function of the reduced maximum irradiation intensity of the laser light (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0049, and 0060-0061, the exposure parameter/time is adjusted as a function of the reduced irradiation intensity/power).
Wakabayashi fails to explicitly disclose determining features of the object based on the recorded image of the reflected pattern.
However, Irie teaches determining features of the object based on the recorded image of the reflected pattern (See at least Irie Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0054, and Figure 3, the through hole of the workpiece, which is interpreted as features of the object, is detected using the image of the reflected light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Wakabayashi with Irie to determine features of the object based on the recorded image of the reflected pattern. This modification, as taught by Irie, would allow the system to detect features of the object, like a through hole, that can be used to grip the object (See at least Irie Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0051-0055, and Figure 4), thus, increasing the awareness of the system.
Even though Wakabayashi teaches reducing a maximum irradiation intensity of the laser light as a function of a distance to a person, modified Wakabayashi fails to explicitly disclose continuously reducing a maximum irradiation intensity of the laser light as a function of a distance to a person in a critical spatial proximity to the laser light.
However, Sick AG teaches continuously reducing a maximum irradiation intensity of the laser light as a function of a distance to a person in a critical spatial proximity to the laser light (See at least Sick AG Paragraphs 0016-0019, 0047, and 0050-0052, the maximum value for the laser is based on a continuous function of a measured distance of a person).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakabayashi with Sick AG to continuously reduce a maximum irradiation intensity of the laser light as a function of a distance to a person in a critical spatial proximity to the laser light. This modification, as taught by Sick AG, would allow the power of the laser light to be continuously adjusted according to the distance of the person in order to protect the eyes against hazardous electromagnetic radiation (See at least Sick AG Paragraphs 0018-0019 and 0051-0052).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Wakabayashi teaches the exposure parameter of the camera is an exposure time (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0049, 0060-0061, the exposure time is adjusted as a function of the reduced irradiation intensity/power); and
the exposure time is adjustably extended as a function of the reduced maximum irradiation intensity of the laser light (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0049, and 0060-0061, the exposure time is extended as a function of the reduced irradiation intensity/power).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Wakabayashi teaches the exposure parameter of the camera is the aperture diaphragm (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraph 0052); and
the aperture diaphragm is adjustably opened as a function of the reduced maximum irradiation intensity of the laser light (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraph 0052, the aperture is further on an open side/adjustably opened as a function of the reduced irradiation intensity/power).
Regarding Claim 16, Wakabayashi teaches a laser-optical detection system (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraph 0005 and Figure 2), comprising:
a laser projector configured to emit laser light having predetermined patterns in a predetermined wavelength range with a predetermined irradiation intensity for projection of the patterns onto an object (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0031-0032, and 0049, the laser light is projected onto the object with a predetermined pattern at a predetermined wavelength with a predetermined intensity);
a camera configured to optically detect the patterns of laser light reflected from the object using an optical system under predetermined exposure parameters (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0040, 0047-0049, and Figure 2, the camera/image capturing device detects the pattern reflected from the object under predetermined exposure parameters/time);
the control device further configured to actuate the laser projector and the camera in order to determine a shape, position, and orientation of the object (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0027, 0041, 0053-0054, and 0056, the controller/control device controls the driving of the laser emitter/projector and the camera/image capturing device in order to determine the posture, position, and shape of the object);
a sensor unit configured to detect an approach or a presence of a person in a critical spatial proximity to the laser projector (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0019, 0060, and Figure 5, the human detection sensor detects the presence of a human in a critical special proximity), and configured to transmit to the control device a signal characterizing the approach or the presence of the person (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0041, 0060, and Figure 2, the human detection sensor transmits a signal characterizing the presence of a person to the controller/control device);
the control device configured to…reduce the maximum irradiation intensity of the laser projector in response to the characterizing signal and as a function of a distance to the person (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0019, 0049, 0060-0061, and Figure 5, the intensity/power of the laser is reduced to a second power when the person is detected within a certain distance); and
the control device configured to adjust, in response to the signal from the sensor unit, the exposure parameters of the camera as a function of the reduced maximum irradiation intensity of the laser projector relative to a current irradiation intensity of the laser projector (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0049, 0060-0061, the exposure parameter/time is adjusted as a function of the reduced irradiation intensity/power).
Wakabayashi fails to explicitly disclose the control device is configured to actuate the laser projector and the camera in order to determine features of the object.
However, Irie teaches actuate the laser projector and the camera in order to determine features of the object (See at least Irie Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0054, and Figure 3, the through hole of the workpiece, which is interpreted as features of the object, is detected using the camera and laser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Wakabayashi with Irie to actuate the laser projector and the camera in order to determine features of the object. This modification, as taught by Irie, would allow the system to detect features of the object, like a through hole, that can be used to grip the object (See at least Irie Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0051-0055, and Figure 4), thus, increasing the awareness of the system.
Even though Wakabayashi teaches reducing a maximum irradiation intensity of the laser light as a function of a distance to a person, modified Wakabayashi fails to explicitly disclose continuously reduce the maximum irradiation intensity of the laser projector in response to the characterizing signal and as a function of a distance to the person.
However, Sick AG teaches continuously reduce the maximum irradiation intensity of the laser projector in response to the characterizing signal and as a function of a distance to the person (See at least Sick AG Paragraphs 0016-0019, 0047, and 0050-0052, the maximum value for the laser is based on a continuous function of a measured distance of a detected person).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakabayashi with Sick AG to continuously reduce the maximum irradiation intensity of the laser projector in response to the characterizing signal and as a function of a distance to the person. This modification, as taught by Sick AG, would allow the power of the laser light to be continuously adjusted according to the distance of the person in order to protect the eyes against hazardous electromagnetic radiation (See at least Sick AG Paragraphs 0018-0019 and 0051-0052).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Wakabayashi teaches the control device and the camera are combined in a common camera device (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraph 0027 and Figure 2, the three-dimensional measuring device, which is interpreted as the common camera device, includes the controller/control device and the camera/image capturing device).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Wakabayashi teaches the camera device has a secure input via which the signal characterizing the approach or presence of the person is fed from the sensor unit into the camera device using secure technology (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0018, 0041, 0060, and Figure 2, the camera device/three dimensional measuring device has a wire, which is interpreted as a secure input, via which the signal characterizing the presence of the person is fed from the sensor unit).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Wakabayashi teaches the camera device comprises an interface connecting the control device to the camera (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0018, 0047-0048, 0053, and Figure 2, the controller/control device and the camera/image capturing device are connected via a wire, which is interpreted as the interface); and
the exposure parameters set by the control device due to the approach or presence of the person in a critical spatial proximity to the laser projector are transmitted to the camera via the interface (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0018, 0048, 0060, and Figure 2, the exposure parameters/time set by the controller due to the presence of the person is transmitted to the camera via the interface/wire).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Wakabayashi teaches the control device is further configured to simultaneously adjust the exposure parameters of the camera to an instantaneous irradiation intensity of the laser projector as the irradiation intensity changes during an ongoing detection of features of the object (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0019, 0049, and 0060-0061, the exposure parameters of the camera are adjusted according to the reduced irradiation intensity due to the detection of the human presence during ongoing detection of features of the object).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Wakabayashi teaches the sensor unit is configured as at least one of:
a contact-free safety device comprising at least one of light curtains, laser scanners, surveillance cameras (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraph 0026 and Figure 1, the human detection sensor is a contact-free safety device comprising surveillance cameras), door switches, or proximity switches; or
a pressure-sensitive safety device comprising at least one of switch mats, switch strips, or switch buffers.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Wakabayashi teaches a robotic workstation, comprising:
at least one robot (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0017-0018 and Figure 1);
a workspace assigned to the robot and in which at least one object is handled or treated by the robot (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraph 0029, and Figure 1, the object is handled/gripped by the robot); and
the laser-optical detection system according to claim 16 for detecting…the at least one object (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraph 0005, 0053-0054, and Figure 2, the system is used to determine the posture and position of the object);
Modified Wakabayashi fails to disclose detecting features of the at least one object;
wherein the robot is controlled based on the detected features of the at least one object.
However, Irie teaches detecting features of the at least one object (See at least Irie Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0054, and Figure 3, the through hole of the workpiece, which is interpreted as features of the object, is detected);
wherein the robot is controlled based on the detected features of the at least one object (See at least Irie Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0051-0055, and Figure 4, the robot is controlled to grip the object based on the detected features/through hole).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakabayashi with Irie to control the robot based on the detected features. This modification, as taught by Irie, would allow the robot to use the detected features of the object, like a through hole, to stably grip the object (See at least Irie Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0051-0055, and Figure 4), thus, improving the gripping operation performed by the robot.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Wakabayashi teaches controlling a robot associated with the laser-optical detection system (See at least Wakabayashi Paragraphs 0054-0055).
Modified Wakabayashi fails to disclose controlling the robot…based on the determined features of the at least one object.
However, Irie teaches controlling the robot…based on the determined features of the at least one object (See at least Irie Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0051-0055, and Figure 4, the robot is controlled to grip the object based on the determined features/through hole).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakabayashi with Irie to control the robot based on the determined features. This modification, as taught by Irie, would allow the robot to use the determined features of the object, like a through hole, to stably grip the object (See at least Irie Paragraphs 0038-0040, 0051-0055, and Figure 4), thus, improving the gripping operation performed by the robot.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi in view of Irie and Sick AG, and in further view of Ahne et al (US 20150139670 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Ahne)
Regarding Claim 15, modified Wakabayashi fails to disclose regulating the irradiation intensity of the laser light to a value between 90 percent and 99 percent of the maximum irradiation intensity.
However, Ahne teaches regulating the irradiation intensity of the laser light to a value between 90 percent and 99 percent of the maximum irradiation intensity (See at least Ahne Paragraphs 0031 and 0035, the light beam is reduced to 90 percent of normal operating power).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Wakabayashi with Ahne to regulate the irradiation intensity of the laser light to a value between 90 percent and 99 percent of the maximum irradiation intensity. This modification, as taught by Ahne, would reduce the intensity of the laser light to a value that would still be detected by a photo-receptor (See at least Ahne Paragraphs 0035), thus, allowing the features of the object to still be detected by the camera.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite that the features detected are different than the position, orientation, and shape detected by Wakabayashi. However, new reference, Irie, teaches using reflected light from a laser and a camera to detect the through hole of an object. A robot is then controlled to grip the object based on the detected feature/through hole. Thus, for these reasons, claims 12-23 are rejected under 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ESVINDER SINGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights