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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneyasu (US 9,156,626), in view of Habisreitinger (US 8,250,743).
Claims 1, 15 and 17, Kaneyasu teaches: “a tool configured to perform work on a target portion of a workpiece; and an arm to which the tool is connected and which is configured to move the tool;”
Col. 4, lines 49–55 states: “The working part 13 is a work robot configured by an articulated manipulator, and performs predetermined work on the workpiece W under the control of the control part 15.”; an articulated manipulator inherently includes an arm structure moving a tool to perform work. This limitation is expressly taught;
Kaneyasu teaches: “vibration detection circuitry configured to detect vibration of the workpiece in a vibration direction;” Col. 4, lines 11–15 states: “The first oscillation detection part 12 detects oscillations occurring in the workpiece W accompanying conveyance by the workpiece conveyance device 2.”; this expressly teaches detecting oscillations (vibration) of the workpiece;
Kaneyasu teaches: prediction of oscillation behavior (Col. 5, lines 65– col 6, lines 15 states:“Oscillation prediction control refers to control that predicts oscillations occurring in the workpiece W conveyed by the workpiece conveyance device 2… predicts the oscillations occurring in the workpiece W from when the oscillation of a predetermined period detected…”); this teaches predicting oscillation patterns based on detected vibration; However, Kaneyasu does not expressly disclose:
“estimation circuitry configured to estimate an arrival timing at which the workpiece arrives at a return position in the vibration direction.” Although Kaneyasu predicts oscillation periodicity, it does not explicitly describe calculating a specific arrival timing corresponding to a return position in the vibration cycle;
Habisreitinger teaches defined positional timing relative to a moving workpiece;
Col. 6, lines 36–45 states: “the approach speed of the platform 30 is reduced automatically in order to ensure a smooth positioning of the coupling device 66 relative to the workpiece carrier unit 14.”
Col. 6, lines 49–56 states: “movement of the platform 30… ensures an exactly concurrent movement of the platform 30 and of the workpiece carrier unit 14 in the direction of conveyance.”
Thus, teaches synchronizing movement to achieve a defined positional relationship at a specific timing relative to a moving workpiece; therefore , It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneyasu’s oscillation prediction system to explicitly compute an arrival timing corresponding to a return position within the oscillation cycle in order to improve synchronization precision with the moving workpiece. Kaneyasu already predicts oscillation periodicity, and Habisreitinger teaches achieving defined synchronized positioning relative to a moving workpiece. Expressing predicted oscillation phase as a specific arrival timing constitutes a predictable refinement of control logic to improve timing accuracy in robotic processing.
Claim 2, “The robot system according to claim 1, further comprising:a conveyor configured to convey the workpiece at a conveying speed (Col. 7, lines 3–9:“the workpiece conveyance device 2 is configured to include a support rail 21… and a hanger 22 that moves suspended from the support rail 21.”),wherein the control circuitry is configured to wait for the arrival timing while controlling the arm to move the tool in accordance with a motion of the workpiece conveyed by the conveyor (Col. 8, lines 33–42:“the control unit 151… controls movement… so as to synchronously move with the workpiece W…”)
Claim 3, “wherein the control circuitry is configured to calculate a target arrival position of the tool based on the conveying speed of the workpiece at the arrival timing and a position of the target portion at the arrival timing,”
Kaneyasu does not expressly disclose calculating a “target arrival position” based on conveying speed, Habisreitinger teaches movement and defined positional synchronization relative to conveyor motion; Col. 4, lines 52–60 states: “the vehicle body 12… is carried… and moved on the workpiece conveyor way 13 according to arrow 48.” Col. 6, lines 49–56 states: “movement of the platform 30… ensures an exactly concurrent movement of the platform 30 and of the workpiece carrier unit 14…”
“and wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the arm to move the tool to the target arrival position.” ; Kaneyasu teaches robot control for synchronized work.Col. 9, lines 54–62 states:“When oscillations according to the predicted oscillation patterns are reproduced… the control unit 151 starts the work processing…”; Kaneyasu does not expressly disclose computing a future spatial arrival position, thus, It would have been obvious to compute a target arrival position using conveyor speed and predicted oscillation phase to improve precision alignment of the robot tool with the moving workpiece.
Claim 4, “wherein the vibration detection circuitry is configured to detect the vibration in the vibration direction of the workpiece with respect to a reference position which moves together with the tool,”
Kaneyasu teaches detection relative to the robot; Col. 5, lines 5–14 states: “The second oscillation detection part 14 detects oscillations of the working part 13…”; this teaches detection relative to a moving robot reference frame;
“and wherein the estimation circuitry is configured to estimate the arrival timing in the vibration direction with respect to the reference position.”
Kaneyasu teaches oscillation prediction. Col. 5, line 65 – Col. 6, line 15 states: “Oscillation prediction control refers to control that predicts oscillations…”
Claim 5, “a camera which is attached to the robot to capture an image of the workpiece from the reference position,” Kaneyasu teaches: Col. 11, lines 47–53 states: “it may be configured to photograph the workpiece W by way of an imaging device such as a camera…”
“wherein the vibration detection circuitry is configured to detect the vibration… based on the image…”
Same passage states:“and to detect oscillations… by analyzing a captured dynamic picture image.”
This expressly teaches camera-based vibration detection. Claim 5 is anticipated.
Claim 6, “first detection circuitry configured to detect a first vibration… with respect to a first reference position which does not move together with the tool,”
Kaneyasu teaches: Col. 4, lines 11–15 states: “The first oscillation detection part 12 detects oscillations occurring in the workpiece W…”
“a second detection circuitry configured to detect a second vibration… with respect to a second reference position which moves together with the tool,”
Kaneyasu teaches: Col. 5, lines 5–14 states:“The second oscillation detection part 14 detects oscillations of the working part 13…” thus teach two detection systems with different reference frames. Claim 6 is anticipated.
Claim 7, “calculate a target arrival position of the tool based on the first vibration and a position of the target portion at the arrival timing,”
Kaneyasu does not expressly disclose calculating a target arrival position based on first vibration; Habisreitinger teaches defined positional synchronization relative to moving workpiece. Col. 6, lines 49–56 states: “ensures an exactly concurrent movement…”
“and control the arm to move the tool toward the target arrival position.” Kaneyasu teaches synchronized robot control; Col. 9, lines 54–62, thus, It would have been obvious to combine vibration phase prediction with defined positional synchronization to compute a target arrival position.
Claim 8, “a first camera… and a second camera…” Kaneyasu teaches camera detection (Col. 11, lines 47–53) but not two cameras; Habisreitinger teaches multiple sensing subsystems, Col. 5, lines 22–30 states: “the coupling device 66 has… a light barrier system 74 and a stop system 76…”
Thus, using multiple cameras at different reference positions would have been an obvious sensing refinement to improve detection accuracy.
Claim 9, “the second camera… capture an image of a first surface… the first camera… capture an image of a second surface…”
Kaneyasu does not disclose different surface imaging, Habisreitinger teaches distinct engagement regions and sensing interfaces (Col. 5, lines 22–30), thus, providing separate cameras to monitor different surfaces would have been an obvious implementation to improve precision.
Claim 10, “control the arm to position the tool at a standby position… control the arm to move the tool from the standby position toward the target portion based on the arrival timing.”
Kaneyasu does not expressly disclose a standby position, Habisreitinger teaches pre-positioning prior to coupling, Col. 6, lines 5–14 states: “the industrial robot 16 must therefore be moved… positioned in a defined coupling region…”
It would have been obvious to incorporate a standby position before timed engagement for improved precision.
Claim 11 “a conveyor comprising: a hanger configured to hold the workpiece…”
Kaneyasu teaches: Col. 7, lines 3–9 states:“a hanger 22 that moves suspended from the support rail 21…”.
Claim 12, “speed evaluation circuitry configured to evaluate a vibration speed…determination circuitry configured to determine whether or not the work… is possible…”
Kaneyasu does not disclose evaluating vibration speed magnitude to determine work feasibility,
Habisreitinger teaches motion-dependent compensation, Col. 5, lines 1–10 states: “height compensation… tolerance compensation…” , thus, evaluating vibration magnitude to determine whether to proceed would have been an obvious extension of motion-based control logic.
Claim 13, “select a first control mode… select a second control mode…”
Kaneyasu does not disclose mode selection based on vibration speed.
Habisreitinger teaches conditional operational states during synchronized coupling (Col. 6–8), selecting different control strategies based on vibration magnitude would have been obvious.
Claim 14, “evaluate the vibration speed… based on the first vibration…”
Kaneyasu detects oscillation and predicts periodicity (Col. 5, line 65 – Col. 6, line 15) but does not explicitly compute vibration speed, deriving speed from oscillation data would have been an obvious calculation within ordinary skill.
Create “displacement prediction circuitry configured to predict a displacement…calculate a target arrival position based on predicted displacement…”
Kaneyasu predicts oscillation pattern (Col. 5, line 65 – Col. 6, line 15) but does not explicitly disclose displacement compensation, Habisreitinger teaches positional tolerance compensation, Col. 5, lines 1–10, Combining oscillation prediction with displacement compensation would have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657