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 .
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on December 16, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-11, and 13 are amended. Claims 2, 5, and 7 are cancelled. Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn. Applicant has requested rejoinder and allowance of claim 13 upon allowance of claim 1. Examiner recognizes Applicant’s acknowledgements of 112f claim interpretations. Amendments to claim 8 obviate the 112b rejection of the previous rejection and as such Examiner withdraws the 112b rejection accordingly. Arguments with respect to the prior art have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the tool tip in Chen is merely a positional reference from which the tool reference is offset, not a rotation center point around which posture is adjusted and therefore does not disclose “the reference point as a rotation center point” (See Remarks Page 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Video screenshots from the cited Chen reference are attached to the file as an NPL document to demonstrate the Examiner’s point (see article, “Synchronization of tool tip trajectory and attitude based on the surface characteristics of workpiece for 6-DOF robot manipulator”). In each frame of the video attached, the alignment of the tool axis with respect to the tool tip is maintained by a rotation around the tool tip itself through each corner of the design. As such, this exemplifies a rotation of the tool reference, i.e., target part, around the tool tip, i.e., reference point. The translation referred to by Applicant is that of the coordinate position of the tool reference after the rotation occurs around the tool tip. Thus, argument is NOT PERSUASIVE and the previous rejection is upheld.
Applicant argues that Chen shows pre-planned results rather than real-time correction during operation and as such does not teach “correct[ing] … the posture of the control target part during operation of the machine” (See Remarks Pages 8-9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the posture correction amounts are determined in advance of the operation, the posture of the robotic arm is still corrected during the operation. If no such correction of posture occurred during the operation, then the robotic arm would maintain the same posture throughout the trajectory and the corresponding alignment according to the pre-planned result would not be achieved. Thus, argument is NOT PERSUASIVE and the previous rejection is upheld.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a posture adjustment unit” in claim 1;
“a control unit” in claim 1;
“a reference information setting unit” in claim 4; and
“a posture correction amount calculation unit” in claim 4.
Regarding each of a posture adjustment unit, a reference information setting unit, and a posture correction amount calculation unit, the specification discloses “The posture adjustment unit 30, a reference information setting unit 30a, and a posture correction amount calculation unit 30b are formed of one or more programs or program sections that are read and executed by a processor such as a PLC, a central processing unit (CPU), or a micro processing unit (MPU), but are not limited thereto, and in another embodiment, may be formed of one or more semiconductor integrated circuits” [0034]. Thus, each of the posture adjustment unit, the reference information setting unit, and the posture correction amount calculation unit are software configurations, and as such any software which performs the desired function will be considered pertinent when reviewing the prior art.
Regarding a control unit, the specification discloses “The control unit 32 is formed of one or more programs or program sections that are read and executed by a processor such as a PLC, a CPU, or an MPU, but is not limited thereto, and in another embodiment, may be formed of one or more semiconductor integrated circuits or one or more drive circuits” [0035]. Thus, the control unit is additionally a software configuration, and as such any software which performs the desired function will be considered pertinent when reviewing the prior art.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (“Synchronization of tool tip trajectory and attitude based on the surface characteristics of workpiece for 6-DOF robot manipulator”, 2019).
NOTE: The rejections made below were mapped by interpreting both the reference, and additionally the video of the invention which is found on the article website (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736584518302473). Examiner relies on high level summaries of Section 4 and Section 5 throughout the rejection. As such, it is recommended that Applicant carefully interpret the high level teachings these sections when reviewing the following rejections of the claims.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a control device (The “robot controller” included as part of the system block diagram (Fig. 10) which was designed to be used to test experimental results of the study. See Section 5.1. Experiment Platform.) comprising:
a posture adjustment unit configured to adjust, based on reference information of a posture of a control target part of a machine, the posture of the control target part on an operation trajectory of the control target part (Adjustment will be considered as the process of synchronization of “tool reference” using “NURBS”. In this case, we will consider the “tool reference” to be the control target part which follows the operation trajectory determined by the interpolated B-spline trajectory. The orientation, i.e., posture, of the tool reference is adjusted based on the “tool tip” trajectory points and desired approach vector ȃnew with which the “tool axis” aligns, i.e., reference information. See Fig. 6 and Section 4.2 for the relationship between each aspect of the tool head. Such features will be considered as a functional equivalent for the posture adjustment unit, as such a unit is merely a software implementation for the controller.); and
a control unit configured to control an operation of the machine, based on the adjusted posture (“The NURBS are accepted and interpolated into a servo command in our designed robot controller” (Section 5.1. Experiment Platform). Thus, given the synchronization is based on NURBS, such servo commands, i.e., control of an operation of the machine, is based on the adjusted posture. Such will be considered as a functional equivalent to the control unit, as such a unit is merely a software function of the controller.),
wherein the posture adjustment unit is configured to apply at least one of a reference point and a reference line as the reference information (The reference information was determined to be the “tool tip” trajectory points, i.e., reference point, and the desired approach vector, i.e., reference line.),
the posture adjustment unit is configured to, in response to the reference point being applied as the reference information, adjust the posture of the control target part with the reference point as a rotation center point of the control target part on the operation trajectory of the control target part (The “tool reference”, i.e., control target part, is adjusted using the “tool tip” trajectory point, i.e., reference point, as the rotation center point which “tool reference” synchronizes, i.e., adjusts, around throughout the operation trajectory.),
the control unit is configured to correct, based on the posture correction amount of the control target part, the posture of the control target part during operation of the machine (The results shown in Fig. 16-18 exemplify the correction of the posture of the tool reference during the operation of the robot, i.e., servo control commands determined by the robot controller (see Section 5.1). Such servo commands are based on the NURBS which determine the posture correction amount determined in Section 4.2.).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the control device according to claim 1,
wherein, the posture adjustment unit is configured to, in response to the reference line being applied as the reference information, adjust the posture of the control target part with the reference line as a rotation center axis of the control target part on the operation trajectory of the control target part (“The “tool axis” is defined as the rotational axis of the tool” (Section 4.2). The desired approach vector, i.e., reference line, is the rotation center axis around which the tool axis rotates in order to align the “tool reference”, i.e., control target part, during synchronization, i.e., posture adjustment, on the operation trajectory.).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the control device according to claim l, wherein the posture adjustment unit includes:
a reference information setting unit configured to set the reference information (The motion trajectory of the tool tip points, i.e., reference point, is set in advance as a result of the interpolated B-spline trajectory (see Section 4.1). The desired machining pose defined by the desired approach vector, i.e., reference line, is additionally specified by the user (see Section 4.2). Such setting features will be considered as a technical equivalent to the reference information setting unit, as such a unit is merely a software implementation for the controller.); and
a posture correction amount calculation unit configured to calculate the posture correction amount of the control target part, based on the reference information and a position and the posture of the control target part on the operation trajectory of the control target part (“The user specifies the desired machining pose, and then calculates the values for α, β and γ according to the normal pose” (Section 4.2). Equations 26-29 provide additional calculations to determine the tool reference point, i.e., control target part, and associated adjustments required to synchronize the position and posture of the reference point with respect to the operation trajectory based on the tool tip trajectory points, i.e., reference point, and the desired approach vector, i.e., reference line.), wherein
the reference information setting unit is configured to
associate and record the reference information for each of a plurality of teaching points constituting the operation trajectory of the control target part or for each of a plurality of operation intervals of the control target part (Fig. 16-18 associates and records the tool tip trajectory points, i.e., reference points, as well as resulting desired approach vector with the corresponding tool reference position for each operation interval which is to be considered as any such change in direction.), or
switch and set the reference information for each of the plurality of teaching points constituting the operation trajectory or for each of the plurality of operation intervals (Particularly with respect to those Fig. 16-18 (b-d) in which the x and y-axes are rotated a specified degree, one can see how the desired approach vector, i.e., reference line as a part of reference information, is switched and set with respect to each operation interval, i.e., change in machining direction.), and
the posture correction amount calculation unit is configured to, in response to the reference point being applied as the reference information, rotate a posture vector of the control target part around a first correction rotation axis being perpendicular to a plane in which a posture vector of the control target part before posture adjustment and the reference point exist, the first correction rotation axis passing through the position of the control target part on the operation trajectory of the control target part (The “tool axis”, i.e., posture vector before posture adjustment, rotates around the “normal vector” n as a result of the cross product between the tool axis and the direction of motion (aligned with the tool tip trajectory point) as one of the three rotation angles in the calculation. The normal vector is the correction rotation axis which is perpendicular to the tool tip trajectory point and the tool axis before rotation which passes through the position of the tool reference on the operation trajectory of the tool reference. See Fig. 9. Although video and experiments do not explicitly show this rotation, the rotation matrix derived in Equations 25-29 determine such a rotation, indicating “any pose and trajectory can be specified” thus making this method anticipated by the prior art.), and
calculate the posture correction amount in which the posture vector passes through the reference point (The posture correction amount is the derived rotation angle which causes the tool axis to align with, i.e., pass through, the tool tip trajectory point, i.e., reference point.).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the control device according to claim 4,
wherein, the posture correction amount calculation unit is configured to, in response to the reference line being applied as the reference information, rotate the posture vector of the control target part around a second correction rotation axis being parallel to the reference line and passing through the position of the control target part on the operation trajectory of the control target part (The “tool axis”, i.e., posture vector, is rotated around the approach vector which is parallel to the desired approach vector, i.e., reference line, and passes through a position of the tool reference, i.e., control target part, on the operation trajectory of the tool reference. See Fig. 9 and additionally the video as such rotation is exemplified throughout the examples provided in the experimentation result.), and
calculate the posture correction amount for correcting the posture of the control target part in a direction in which the posture vector intersects the reference line (The angular correction amount which corrects the posture of the tool reference, i.e., control part, such that the tool axis intersects the set desired approach vector, i.e., reference line, is calculated via the process of Equations 25-29.).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the control device according to claim 4,
wherein the posture correction amount calculation unit is configured to calculate the posture correction amount by switching the reference information for each position of the control target part on the operation trajectory of the control target part or for each of the plurality of operation intervals of the control target part (A posture correction amount is calculated in the example for each position of the tool reference with respect to the operation trajectory which was determined by interpolating the B-spline trajectory (see Section 4). The examples shown in Section 5, Fig. 16-18 show how the tool tip trajectory points, i.e., reference point, and desired approach vector, i.e., reference line, switch throughout the operation trajectory, especially for any change of direction in the trajectory. Such changes in direction will be considered as an operation interval for the tool reference, i.e., control target part.).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the control device according to claim 4, wherein the posture correction amount calculation unit is configured to record the posture correction amount of the control target part (See Fig. 16-18 in which the posture correction amount of the tool reference, i.e., control target part, is recorded. As such a recording is an operation of a software configuration of the controller, such function will be considered pertaining to the technical equivalent for the posture correction amount calculation unit.).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the control device according to claim 4,
wherein the posture correction amount calculation unit is configured to calculate the posture correction amount of the control target part during or after teaching of the machine (The machine is taught via a B-spline trajectory interpolation to determine the operation trajectory of the tool. The calculations determined in Equations 25-29 rely on such taught trajectories, and as such the calculation of the posture correction amount of the control target part occurs after teaching of the machine.), and
correct the posture information of the control target part applied in an operation program of the machine (Based on the machining trajectory determined in the teaching process, the controller corrects the posture information corresponding to the tool reference, i.e., control target part, used in the operation of the program for the robot control system (see Fig. 10).).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the control device according to claim 4,
wherein the posture correction amount calculation unit is configured to calculate the posture correction amount of the control target part during operation of the machine (The angular posture corrections for the tool reference, i.e., control target part, are calculated during the operation of the machine’s tool tip as it traverses the tool tip trajectory which was determined by the B-spline trajectory interpolation methods of Section 4.2.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656