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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 7/29/2024. A filing date 7/29/2024 is acknowledged. The sought benefit of provisional application 63632096 (which was filed on 4/10/2024) is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 12, 19 are independent claims.
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.
3. 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: a model generator, a model analyzer, a path planner in claim 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the system 100 may be implemented using software, hardware, firmware, or a combination thereof. When software is used, the operations performed by the system 100 may be implemented using, for example, without limitation, program code configured to run on a processor unit ([0115]).
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 § 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
4. Claims 1-5, 10-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adadhoot Ahire et al (US Publication 20230381961 A1, hereinafter Ahire), and in view of Michael David Huffman et al (US Publication 20120053854 A1, hereinafter Huffman).
As for independent claim 1, Ahire discloses: A system comprising: a model generator configured to generate a model representing at least a portion of a surface of a component (Ahire: [0017], capture scan data of a workpiece occupying a work cell during a (rapid) contactless scan cycle; to compile these scan data into a virtual three-dimensional model exhibiting relatively low spatial or dimensional accuracy; to generate a toolpath spanning surfaces represented in the virtual model a); a model analyzer configured to analyze the model to determine [a waviness of the surface] (Ahire: Abstract, interpreting a surface contour in the workpiece region based on the sequence of positions; detecting a difference between the surface contour and a corresponding target surface defined in a target model of the workpiece); and a path planner configured to generate a sanding plan (Ahire: Abstract, generating a second toolpath for the workpiece region based on the difference; and, during a second processing cycle, navigating the sanding head across the workpiece region according to the second toolpath to reduce the difference; [0017], defining a sequence of nominal positions and orientations traversable by a sanding head to sand (hereinafter “process”) the workpiece; and to assign a target force for application of the sanding head on the workpiece).
Ahire discloses interpreting a surface data but does not clearly disclose determining a waviness of the surface, in an analogous art of measuring and inspecting a surface of an object, Huffman discloses: a model analyzer configured to analyze the model to determine a waviness of the surface (Huffman: [0091], the information provided by analysis of second curve 724 and/or desired surface data 718 may provide information about an average maximum height for the profile of the object, an average maximum profile peak height, a maximum roughness depth, a mean spacing between profile irregularities, a maximum profile valley depth, and/or other suitable types of information);
Ahire and Huffman are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, measuring and inspecting a surface of an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ahire using the teachings of Huffman to include analyzing and determining surface features data including roughness and waviness. It would provide Ahire’s system with enhanced capabilities of improving the accuracy in surface sanding.
As for claim 2, Ahire-Huffman discloses: comprising a measurement system configured to generate measurement data representing at least the portion of the surface of the component, wherein the measurement data is used to generate the model (Ahire: [0019], These coordinate measurements may thus represent true three-dimensional positions of points on real surfaces of the workpiece).
As for claim 3, Ahire-Huffman discloses: comprising a robotic sander configured to sand the surface according to the sanding plan (Ahire: [0032], a robotic arm arranged in or adjacent a work zone and that includes a set of articulatable joints interposed between a series of arm segments; an end effector supported on a distal end of the robotic arm; a sanding head arranged on or integrated into the end effector and configured to actuate (e.g., rotate) a sanding pad).
As for claim 4, Ahire-Huffman discloses: determine an overall deviation in a normal direction between the model and a nominal model of the component; and
determine overall dimensions of the overall deviation in the normal direction (Huffman: [0047], features 416 are any deviations from a desired contour for surface; [0086], Vertical axis 712 identifies deviations of the surface of the object from a reference plane; [0101], the Y values may be used to identify deviations from a desired contour for the surface).
As for claim 5, Ahire-Huffman discloses: perform a best fit alignment between the model and the nominal model of the component to determine the overall deviation (Ahire: [0020], aligns the target and virtual models; Huffman: [0054], A trend is a curve for a group of data generated using statistical analysis. For example, the trend may be a best-fit curve).
As for claim 10, Ahire-Huffman discloses: wherein the model generator, the model analyzer, and the path planner take the form of program code that is executed by a data processing system (Ahire: [0150], The instructions can be executed by computer-executable components integrated by computer-executable components integrated with apparatuses and networks of the type described above).
As per claim 11, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As for claim 13, Ahire-Huffman discloses: wherein the model is analyzed to determine dimensions of bumps on the surface of the component (Ahire: [0014], to access a high-resolution representation of target final dimensions and contours of a workpiece (or a “target model”), such as a computer-aided-drafting model of the workpiece annotated with geometric and dimensional tolerances of individual surface contours and between surfaces contours of the workpiece … to detect differences between this actual surface contour of the workpiece and a corresponding target surface defined in the target model (i.e., excess material on the actual surface contour versus the geometry and dimensions defined on the corresponding target surface in the target model)).
As for claim 14, Ahire-Huffman discloses: performing a best fit alignment between the model and the nominal model; determining an overall deviation in a normal direction between the model and a nominal model of the component; and determining overall dimensions of the overall deviation in the normal direction (Ahire: [0020], aligns the target and virtual models; Huffman: [0054], A trend is a curve for a group of data generated using statistical analysis. For example, the trend may be a best-fit curve).
As for claim 17, Ahire-Huffman discloses: wherein the method is implemented using a computer (Ahire: [0150], The instructions can be executed by computer-executable components integrated by computer-executable components integrated with apparatuses and networks of the type described above.
As per claim 18, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
As per claim 19, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
5. Claims 6-9, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahire and Huffman as applied on claims 1, 12 and 19, and further in view of Aaron Wallack et al (US Publication 20200388053 A1, hereinafter Wallack).
As for claim 6, Ahire-Huffman discloses a multi-axis gantry (Ahire: [0034], the system includes a multi-axis (e.g., five-axis) gantry configured to locate and articulate the end effector, sanding head, and optical sensor(s) across the work zone) but does not disclose a UVM-coordinate system, in another analogous art of surface inspection, Wallack discloses: map the overall deviation from an XYZ-coordinate system to a UVW-coordinate system such that values for overall dimensions of the overall deviation are represented along a W-axis; and filter the values for the overall dimensions of the overall deviation into a form deviation and a waviness deviation (Wallack: [0055], the acquired 3D (u,v,w) measurement coordinate space differs from the (fx,fy,fz) factory coordinate space, and a correction is estimated; [0191], the procedure computes a coordinate system/space (u,v,w) that is coincident with the laser plane, and performs a (e.g. rigid 3D) transformation of coordinates from their factory calibration coordinate space of (fx,fy,fz) to a laser plane-aligned coordinate space (u,v,w)).
Ahire and Huffman and Wallack are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, measuring and inspecting a surface of an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ahire using the teachings of Wallack to include using UVM coordinate measurement data in surface data analysis. It would provide Ahire’s system with enhanced capabilities of improving the accuracy in surface inspection.
As for claim 7, Ahire-Huffman-Wallack discloses: wherein the model analyzer filters the values using one of a low-pass filter or a robust gaussian regression filter (Huffman: [0120], g is the impulse response of the high pass filter associated with the discrete wavelet transform associated with the mother wavelet, and h is the impulse response of the low pass filter associated with the discrete wavelet transform associated with the mother wavelet).
As for claim 8, Ahire-Huffman-Wallack discloses: wherein the model analyzer is configured to modify the nominal model by the waviness deviation, such that the nominal model, as modified by the waviness deviation, represents the waviness of the surface of the component (Ahire: [0017], to compile these scan data into a virtual three-dimensional model exhibiting relatively low spatial or dimensional accuracy; to generate a toolpath spanning surfaces represented in the virtual model and defining a sequence of nominal positions and orientations traversable by a sanding head to sand (hereinafter “process”) the workpiece; and to assign a target force for application of the sanding head on the workpiece; [0133], calculates a target correction contact duration for each subregion based on a) the nominal target force selected for the workpiece).
As for claim 9, Ahire-Huffman-Wallack discloses: wherein the model analyzer is further configured to map the waviness deviation from the UVW-coordinate system to the XYZ-coordinate system such that values for waviness dimensions of the waviness deviation are represented as distances relative to the nominal model (Wallack: [0055], the acquired 3D (u,v,w) measurement coordinate space differs from the (fx,fy,fz) factory coordinate space, and a correction is estimated; [0191], the procedure computes a coordinate system/space (u,v,w) that is coincident with the laser plane, and performs a (e.g. rigid 3D) transformation of coordinates from their factory calibration coordinate space of (fx,fy,fz) to a laser plane-aligned coordinate space (u,v,w)).
As for claim 15, Ahire-Huffman-Wallack discloses: mapping the overall deviation from an XYZ-coordinate system to a UVW-coordinate system such that values for the overall dimensions of the overall deviation are represented along a W-axis (Wallack: [0055], the acquired 3D (u,v,w) measurement coordinate space differs from the (fx,fy,fz) factory coordinate space, and a correction is estimated; [0191], the procedure computes a coordinate system/space (u,v,w) that is coincident with the laser plane, and performs a (e.g. rigid 3D) transformation of coordinates from their factory calibration coordinate space of (fx,fy,fz) to a laser plane-aligned coordinate space (u,v,w)); filtering the values for the overall dimensions of the overall deviation into a form deviation and a waviness deviation (Huffman: [0120], g is the impulse response of the high pass filter associated with the discrete wavelet transform associated with the mother wavelet, and h is the impulse response of the low pass filter associated with the discrete wavelet transform associated with the mother wavelet);
modifying the nominal model by the waviness deviation such that the nominal model as modified by the waviness deviation represents the waviness of the surface of the component (Ahire: [0017], to compile these scan data into a virtual three-dimensional model exhibiting relatively low spatial or dimensional accuracy; to generate a toolpath spanning surfaces represented in the virtual model and defining a sequence of nominal positions and orientations traversable by a sanding head to sand (hereinafter “process”) the workpiece; and to assign a target force for application of the sanding head on the workpiece; [0133], calculates a target correction contact duration for each subregion based on a) the nominal target force selected for the workpiece); and mapping the waviness deviation from the UVW-coordinate system to the XYZ-coordinate system such that values for waviness dimensions of the waviness deviation are represented as distances relative to the nominal model (Wallack: [0055], the acquired 3D (u,v,w) measurement coordinate space differs from the (fx,fy,fz) factory coordinate space, and a correction is estimated; [0191], the procedure computes a coordinate system/space (u,v,w) that is coincident with the laser plane, and performs a (e.g. rigid 3D) transformation of coordinates from their factory calibration coordinate space of (fx,fy,fz) to a laser plane-aligned coordinate space (u,v,w)).
As for claim 16, Ahire-Huffman-Wallack discloses: wherein the sanding plan is generated based on the waviness deviation mapped to the XYZ-coordinate system (Ahire: [0018], to capture a series of coordinate measurements (e.g., three-dimensional positions) of a reference point (or a set of reference points, a surface, an area) on the sanding head in contact with the workpiece during this nominal processing and finishing cycle; [0019], the system then: transforms (or “deforms”) the virtual model of the workpiece into alignment with this sequence of coordinate measurements, thereby reducing increasing geometric and dimensional accuracy of the virtual model; Wallack: [0055], the acquired 3D (u,v,w) measurement coordinate space differs from the (fx,fy,fz) factory coordinate space, and a correction is estimated; [0191], the procedure computes a coordinate system/space (u,v,w) that is coincident with the laser plane, and performs a (e.g. rigid 3D) transformation of coordinates from their factory calibration coordinate space of (fx,fy,fz) to a laser plane-aligned coordinate space (u,v,w)).
As per claim 20, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claims 15 and 16, thus the rationales for rejecting claims 15, 16 are incorporated herein.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Doyle (US Publication 20160091888) METHODS AND APPARATUS TO AUTOMATICALLY FABRICATE FILLERS
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights