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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 06/27/2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-13 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
1)-. In paragraph [0010] of the PG-Pub, recites: "There is no prior art of a carpentry tool... "; it should be amended to recite: It has not been found in the prior art a carpentry tool.... ". Appropriated correction is earnestly solicited.
2)-. Before paragraph [0011] of the PG-Pub, recites a title: “INTRODUCTION”; it should be amended to recite: DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION. Appropriated correction is earnestly solicited.
3)-. Before paragraph [0062] of the PG-Pub, recites a title: “OPERATING METHOD OF THE SYSTEM"; it is observed that this title differs from claim 13, which indicates: "A method for operating a collaborative carpentry tool"; As such, it is requested to make a correction so as to support the claim; it should be amended to recite: METHOD FOR OPERATING A COLLABORATIVE CARPENTRY TOOL.
Appropriated correction is earnestly solicited.
3)-. In paragraph [0062] of the PG-Pub, recites: “which requires the following steps:”; it is observed that the term "requires" would not relate to a description of the steps that represent a method; it is not clear, so it should be amended to recite: “which comprises the following steps:”.
Appropriated correction is earnestly solicited.
4)-. It is observed that the disclosure recites in paragraph [0046] of the PG-Pub: "a control system (21)", but also recites, on paragraphs [0062, 0072, 0073, and 0074]: "control system (21a)"; it is observed that the same system has different numerical references; it affects the clarity of the description; It is recommended to amend the numerical references (21a), so that there is homogeneity in the description of the same control system (21).
Appropriated correction is earnestly solicited.
5)-. It is observed that the disclosure recites in paragraph [0046] of the PG-Pub: "positioning means (24)", but also recites, on paragraphs [0072, 0073, and 0074]: "positioning means (29)"; it is observed that different numerical references are included to describe the same apparatus; it affects the clarity of the disclosure; it is recommended to amend the numerical reference (29), so that there is homogeneity in the disclosure of the same positioning means (24).
Appropriated correction is earnestly solicited.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected for using the word “CHARACTERIZED”. While common in Europe, this format is less frequent in the US, where "comprising:" or "consisting essentially of:" are preferred to define the invention's scope.
In addition, it is advisable to avoid using numbers in parentheses in US patent claims to ensure maximum clarity and avoid potential issues with claim construction. This is because parentheses in US claims can sometimes introduce ambiguity regarding the scope of the claim.
Appropriated correction is earnestly solicited.
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 limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) is/are:
1. – a positioning means …In claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 13.
2. – a transport unit…In claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13.
3. – output means…In claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the instant case, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
A)-. Claim 1, as presented, is an independent claim directed to “A carpentry tool for human-robot collaborative stereotomy ….”. However, the claim language fails to follow the USPTO standards (e.g., a claim having a preamble and a body) because it is presented in a narrative form containing just a preamble in a single paragraph. In other words, the claim language is lacking the transitional phrase open-ended “comprising:” that links the preamble of the claim to the body of the claim that contains the breakdown of specific structural elements which define what the invention itself actually is. Moreover, the claim is unclear and vague due to the lacking, in multiple instances, of HOW each of the claimed structural elements are related and/or HOW they work in concert to further define clearly the invention functionality. As such, the claim should be re-written in a proper form.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
B)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “…it is controlled by artificial vision capabilities that locates, recognizes, and executes machining instructions hand-drawn by a carpenter on a workpiece….”. Examiner notes that the phrase should be rewritten as for example: “an artificial vision system configured to locate, recognize, and interpret machining instructions hand-drawn by a carpenter on a workpiece”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
C)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “a control system”. However, nothing in the claim describes the interaction and/or communication between the “control system” and the “artificial vision system” to further execute the interpreted machining instructions.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
D)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “a positioning means, the workpiece, or other exemplary workpiece”. However, nothing in the phrase describes the interaction between the “positioning means and the workpiece, or other exemplary workpiece – Examiner notes that the phrase should be rewritten as for example, “a positioning means for securing the workpiece or other exemplary workpieces”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
E)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “a manipulator”. However, “a manipulator” alone does not provide clarity in the specifics of how the manipulator interacts in the invention. Examiner notes that this limitation should be rewritten as for example, “a manipulator arm controlled by the control system”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
F)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “a horizontal linear movement shaft”. However, “a horizontal linear movement shaft” alone does not provide clarity in the specifics of how the shaft interacts in the invention. Examiner notes that this limitation should be rewritten as for example, “a horizontal linear movement shaft coupled to the manipulator arm to extend the operating range of the robot”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
G)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “a robotic tool changer”. However, “a robotic tool changer” alone does not provide clarity in the specifics of how or where the robotic tool changer is installed. Examiner notes that this limitation should be rewritten as for example, “a robotic tool changer mounted to the manipulator arm”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
H)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “a plurality of interchangeable cutting tools”. However, “a plurality of interchangeable cutting tools” alone do not provide clarity in the specifics of how the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools are used. Examiner notes that this limitation should be rewritten as for example, “a plurality of interchangeable cutting tools configured for use with the robotic tool changer”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
I)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “an end-effector rack”. However, “an end-effector rack” alone do not provide clarity in the specifics of how the end-effector rack is used. Examiner notes that this limitation should be rewritten as for example, “an end-effector rack configured to hold the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
J)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “a detection system”. However, “a detection system” alone do not provide clarity in the specifics of what is being detected while the system is in use. Examiner notes that this limitation should be rewritten as for example, “a detection system configured to monitor the workpiece and human interaction”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
K)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “a transport unit, which is a platform intended for sea or river transport, land transport, and multimodal transport, which can be permanently installed in a factory or temporarily installed on site.”. However, the phrase does not provide clarity in the specifics of how is the relationship with the collaborative industrial robot. Examiner notes that this limitation should be rewritten as for example, “a transportable platform configured to support the collaborative industrial robot system for operation in at least one of a factory environment, a remote site, and a multimodal transport setting.”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited
L)-. Claim 1, as presented, is unclear and vague because the claim recites “an artificial vision system” and “an automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system”. However, the claim does not provide clarity in the specifics of what is the relationship of these two elements, it could be a single vision system or two separate vision systems. Examiner notes that this limitation should be rewritten as for example “wherein the artificial vision system is an eye-in-hand vision system configured to be automatically changed by the robotic tool changer”.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
M)-. Regarding claims 1 and 4, The use of the phrase “can be / can come” is indefinite. It is not clear if Applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “can be / can come” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, using "are" or simply deleting the words). In other words, the words “can be / can come” are indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that is a mere possibility that is not required.
The verb form of the word “can” carry multiple meanings in the English language. It can be used to indicate a physical ability or some other specified capability. It can also be used to indicate a possibility or probability.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
N)-. Regarding claims 4, 6 and 7, the wording "such as" and “for example” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
O)-. Claim 13 is considered indefinite since it contain the conditional clause “if” in step h (“..the operational space if the carpenter…”) creating an uncertainty wherein an event can occur or not, hence the use of this clause renders the claims indefinite and the scope of the claim is unascertainable because the use of conditional term “if” is linked to two options: Yes or Not, so the claim must provide the result of both possibilities: "Only after X happens will Y happen." The condition is a singular event that triggers the indicated response. The speaker does not know whether the activity in the “if” phrase will occur. Hence, one suggested option to correct this issue is using the word “when” instead of term “if”. That is, "Anytime X occurs, Y results." That X will occur is expected (when). The speaker knows that the activity in “when” phrase is likely to occur. “When” expresses more certainty than “if”. In other words, the use of “if” is to introduce a possible or unreal situation or condition, while the use of “when” refers to the time of a future situation or condition that we are certain of.
Appropriate correction is earnestly solicited.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections provided herein.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al (NPL “Hand‑drawn digital fabrication: calibrating a visual communication method for robotic on‑site fabrication” – 2021 - “Pedersen”) in view of Wagner et al (NPL “Flexible and transportable robotic timber construction platform – TIM” – 2020 – “Wagner”).
Note: For clarity purposes in the office action, Examiner has deleted all reference numerals from the original claims to avoid potential confusion and/or ambiguities.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Pedersen discloses a carpentry tool and the associated method for human-robot collaborative stereotomy using a collaborative industrial robot system (e.g., via Hand‑drawn digital fabrication: calibrating a visual communication method for robotic on‑site fabrication – see also figure 2 depicting a robot during the process of detecting on-object hand-drawn markings), CHARACTERIZED in that it is controlled by artificial vision capabilities (e.g., using a computer vision having a visual feedback system – Examiner notes that the term “computer vision” is interpreted as an equivalent of “artificial vision”) that locates, recognizes, and executes machining instructions hand-drawn by a carpenter on a workpiece (see section 3.2 – computer vision – disclosing The preferred method is “image contour” as it produces clear outlines for curves, lines, and closed curves (Fig. 3, bottom). However, each type needs a separate method for deriving the central axis that is the basis for creating robotic fabrication information (Fig. 4).); the collaborative carpentry tool, comprising
a control system (see figure 2 below depicting a control device),
a positioning means (see figure 8 and 9 depicting a mechanism to hold or support the wood-timber workpiece before the cutting operation),
PNG
media_image1.png
802
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the workpiece (e.g., see figure 2: workpiece such as a piece of timber for a specific task), or other exemplary workpiece (e.g., other work-objects),
a user interface (e.g., see “Preface” disclosing a tablet user interface controls fabrication tasks based on On-Object Hand-Drawn Markings (OOHDM)).
a detection system (e.g., see figure 2 flow chart - see section 2.2 disclosing the sensor or camera; see “Preface” disclosing the paper describes a system augmentation to enable detection of OOHDM’s on multiple surfaces of a given material – see figure 2 disclosing the process of detecting on-object hand-drawn markings – see section 5.2 disclosing OOHDMs detected at the master pose are used to position and combine any subsequent OOHDMs. All OOHDMs are detected using the developed techniques, meaning that each camera has a unique scale, rotation and work-object defined (Fig. 14).),
PNG
media_image2.png
554
958
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a manipulator (e.g., via ABB IRB 120 robot arm – see abstract),
a horizontal linear movement shaft (see figure 2 depicting the horizontal shaft for a linear movement of the timber workpiece – see also figure 13 below),
PNG
media_image3.png
834
954
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pedersen teaches the claimed invention, but is silent to teach the components of a vacuum generator, a backup power system, an alert system, a robotic tool changer, an end-effector rack, an automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system, a plurality of interchangeable cutting tools; and a transport unit, which is a platform intended for sea or river transport, land transport, and multimodal transport, which can be permanently installed in a factory or temporarily installed on site.
However, in the same field of endeavour or analogous art, Wagner teaches the claimed elements implemented in a Flexible and transportable robotic timber construction platform – TIM. Wagner further teaches:
a vacuum generator (see figure 10 showing two vacuum grippers – see section 4.3, page 6, disclosing Four to ten digitally actuated vacuum clamps can be flexibly placed on the fixture plate to allow quick, automated and strong fixation of the cassette. The vacuum is provided by a flexibly positioned vacuum pump on rolls (Fig. 8-10).),
a backup power system (see section 4.3, page 7 disclosing in its case-study production setup, the platform was connected via a total of three 32A CEKON and three 16A CEKON power supply cables.),
an alert system (see figure 18 disclosing “safety signals”),
a robotic tool changer (see section 4.1, page 4 disclosing the arrangement of tools on the robotic effector mounting flange is typically very process- and project-dependent. Generic fixtures and adapter mounts were chosen, to allow for repositioning and quick exchange of single or multiple tools.),
an end-effector rack (e.g. effector mounting flange – see also figure 10 showing a handling effector),
an automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system (e.g., see section 4.3, page 7 disclosing a Leuze LSIS 462i smart-camera for tag and geometry identification for quality control and piece identification as well as multiple proximity sensors for process safety control.),
a plurality of interchangeable cutting tools (see section 4.1, page 4 disclosing the arrangement of tools on the robotic effector mounting flange is typically very process- and project-dependent. Generic fixtures and adapter mounts were chosen, to allow for repositioning and quick exchange of single or multiple tools. – see figure 9 showing multitool effector); and
a transport unit, which is a platform intended for sea or river transport, land transport, and multimodal transport, which can be permanently installed in a factory or temporarily installed on site (see abstract disclosing robotic fabrication in the building industry through the conceptualization,
development and evaluation of a largescale, transportable and flexible robotic timber construction platform – named TIM. – see also section 2.5).
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pedersen to include the components as taught by Wagner for the benefit of having a transportable and flexible robotic timber construction platform – named TIM.
Regarding claim 2, Pedersen in view of Wagner discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen discloses that the control system (e.g. control device in figure 2) is a device that processes the set of logic (see flow chart figure 2) (see flow chart figure 2), the manipulator (see flow chart figure 2), the horizontal linear movement shaft (see flow chart figure 2), (see flow chart figure 2), and
On the other hand, Wagner teaches that the control system (e.g. programmable logic control cabinet (Fig. 8-11) is a device that processes the set of logic (see flow chart figure 2) and power control functions that allows the monitoring and control of the mechanical structure of the vacuum generator, the backup power system, the robotic tool changer, the end-effector rack, the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools, and the communication with the environment via the automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system, the user interface, and the alert system; and the control system is arranged at one end of the transport unit, outside the operational space of the manipulator (see at least figure 8 showing all the automation platform). See motivation to combine as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen is silent to disclose that the vacuum generator is a device which, pneumatically by means of compressed air, or electrically by means of a displacement pump, is capable of creating the vacuum required by the robotic tool changer to hold and secure the automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system and each of the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools; and the vacuum generator is arranged at one end of the transport unit next to the control system. Wagner teaches that the vacuum generator is a device which, pneumatically by means of compressed air, or electrically by means of a displacement pump, is capable of creating the vacuum required by the robotic tool changer to hold and secure the automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system and each of the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools; and the vacuum generator is arranged at one end of the transport unit next to the control system (see section 4.3, page 6 – see also figure 8). See motivation to combine as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen is silent to disclose that the backup power system is an electrical power source that can come from a power generator such as, for example, an internal combustion engine, fuel cells, electromagnetic generator, photovoltaic cells, or from an energy storage device such as, for example, a battery bank, capacitors and super capacitors, or from an energy harvester and nano-generator such as, for example, a micro/nano-energy source, self-powered sensors and flexible transducers; and the backup power system is used only when it is not possible to connect to an installed power grid and is arranged at one end of the transport unit next to the vacuum generator (see figure 8 – see section 4.3, pages 6-7).
Regarding claim 5, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen further discloses that the positioning means is a modular and extendable electromechanical device, which holds and secures the workpiece, automatically positions and repositions it in at least 2 translational degrees of freedom and automatically orients and reorients it in at least 1 rotational degree of freedom during a machining operation as required and in order to enable the manipulator to inspect and machine both bent logs and straight plates and bars; and the positioning means is arranged in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the transport unit and over almost its entire length, with both ends free to facilitate its potential connection to conveyor belts and other workpiece input and output means; in case of installing the collaborative carpentry tool permanently in the factory to be part of a larger production line, for better operation, two positioning means are provided (see at least figures 2, 8, 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 6, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen further discloses that the user interface is a means for exchanging information and actions between a carpenter and the collaborative industrial robot system during human-robot interaction, which may be situationally hosted on a portable electronic device such as, for example, a tablet, a smartphone, or a display mounted on the head of the carpenter (e.g., see “Preface” disclosing a tablet user interface controls fabrication tasks based on On-Object Hand-Drawn Markings (OOHDM)).
Regarding claim 7, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen further discloses that the detection system is a set of software-interrelated sensors such as, for example, of the 3D LiDAR type, distributed on the four corners of the transport unit that continuously scan its environment in three dimensions in order to detect and differentiate people and objects, identify the direction of movement of persons in the area of operation of the collaborative industrial robot system, and automatically activate the alert system and other protective measures, such as interrupting the operation of the manipulator and the currently mounted interchangeable cutting tool (e.g., see figure 2 flow chart - see section 2.2 disclosing the sensor or camera; see “Preface” disclosing the paper describes a system augmentation to enable detection of OOHDM’s on multiple surfaces of a given material – see figure 2 disclosing the process of detecting on-object hand-drawn markings – see section 5.2 disclosing OOHDMs detected at the master pose are used to position and combine any subsequent OOHDMs. All OOHDMs are detected using the developed techniques, meaning that each camera has a unique scale, rotation and work-object defined (Fig. 14).); and
Wagner teaches the alert system, is an electronic device, which provides visual and audible indicators of the status of the collaborative industrial robot system to a carpenter and anyone in its vicinity, and the alert system is arranged within the transport unit, outside the operational space of the manipulator (see figure 18 disclosing “safety signals”). See motivation to combine as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen is silent to disclose that the manipulator, is an industrial robot that manipulates an automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system for inspecting the workpiece, locating and recognizing machining instructions hand-drawn by a carpenter, and manipulating a plurality of interchangeable cutting tools to execute the machining instructions; and the manipulator is mounted on a horizontal linear movement shaft comprising two parallel rails, which enables it to move in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the transport unit and of displacement of the positioning means. Wagner teaches that the manipulator, is an industrial robot that manipulates an automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system for inspecting the workpiece, locating and recognizing machining instructions hand-drawn by a carpenter, and manipulating a plurality of interchangeable cutting tools to execute the machining instructions; and the manipulator is mounted on a horizontal linear movement shaft comprising two parallel rails, which enables it to move in the direction of the longitudinal axis of the transport unit and of displacement of the positioning means (see figures 8-11; see figure 10 showing Handling effector with two pneumatic grippers (4), two vacuum grippers (5), multiple sensors (6) and a camera for quality control.). See motivation to combine as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen further disclose that the horizontal linear movement shaft is an external auxiliary axis of the manipulator that adds 1 degree of translational freedom to the manipulator in order to increase its range and working space (see figure 2 depicting the horizontal shaft for a linear movement of the timber workpiece – see also figure 13). Wagner teaches that the horizontal linear movement shaft and is arranged next to the positioning means with one of its ends terminating in the end-effector rack to facilitate the approach of the manipulator to the automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system and to the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools (see figure 8-13). See motivation to combine as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen is silent to disclose that the robotic tool changer is an electronically controlled automatic end-effector coupling device, comprising two opposing and complementary parts to be coupled and secured to each other, wherein the part that picks up the end-effectors is mounted on the mechanical interface of the manipulator; and the part that is being picked up is mounted on the automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system and on each of the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools; and the robotic tool changer is capable of passing through both parts electrical signals, gases, and fluids to and from the end-effector, and is powered by pneumatic energy from the vacuum generator to automatically pick up, hold, and set down the automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system and the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools. (see Wagner figures 1, 9-11 (e.g. effector mounting flange – see also figure 10 showing a handling effector)- (see Wagner section 4.1, page 4 disclosing the arrangement of tools on the robotic effector mounting flange is typically very process- and project-dependent. Generic fixtures and adapter mounts were chosen, to allow for repositioning and quick exchange of single or multiple tools.),
an end-effector rack (e.g. effector mounting flange – see also figure 10 showing a handling effector)). See motivation to combine as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen is silent to disclose that the end-effector rack is an automatic tool dispenser which is reciprocal of the robotic tool changer and which is provided with an electronically controlled gripping or clamping structure powered by pneumatic energy from the vacuum generator for automatically holding, releasing, and receiving the automatically changeable eye-in-hand vision system and the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools. (see Wagner figures 1, 9-11 (e.g. effector mounting flange – see also figure 10 showing a handling effector)). See motivation to combine as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Pedersen discloses as discussed in claim 1. Pedersen is silent to disclose that the plurality of interchangeable cutting tools is a set adaptable in variety and quantity of electronically controlled wood machining tools arranged in the end-effector rack for use by the manipulator to execute machining instructions hand-drawn by a carpenter on the workpiece, or other exemplary workpiece. Wagner teaches (see section 4.1, page 4 disclosing the arrangement of tools on the robotic effector mounting flange is typically very process- and project-dependent. Generic fixtures and adapter mounts were chosen, to allow for repositioning and quick exchange of single or multiple tools. – see figure 9 showing multitool effector). See motivation to combine as set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wade Miles can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656