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 .
Requirement for Unity of Invention
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 15-22, drawn to a robotic tool.
Group II, claim(s) 23, drawn to a robotic tool method.
Group III, claim(s) 25, drawn to a 3D modeling method.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “capture spatial data in the form of a point cloud of an object and its surroundings; allocate the spatial data to cells of a cellular space; determine one or more characteristics of a cell according to data of adjacent cells”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lin (US20210308862A1).
Lin teaches capture spatial data in the form of a point cloud of an object and its surroundings (Figure 8 shows objects (810) that are captured in the point cloud as shown in Figure 4.); allocate the spatial data to cells of a cellular space (Figure 4) determine one or more characteristics of a cell according to data of adjacent cells (Figure 4 shows characteristics (location, occupation, proximity to occupied) are determined according to the data of the point cloud, which includes data from adjacent cells.)
During a telephone conversation with Yong Chen on 06/10/2026 a provisional election was made to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-3, 6-11, 13 and 15-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 23 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 3, 7-10, 15, 17, 20 and 22 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.
Claim 3 recites “optionally”. The phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 7 and 8 recite “a characteristic”. Claim 1 recites “one or more characteristics” and Claim 6 recites “first characteristics” and “second characteristics”. It is unclear which “characteristic” Claims 7 and 8 are referring to, or if it is referring to a new “characteristic”.
Claim 17 recites “e.g.”. The phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 recites “lines (paths)”. It is unclear if “(paths)” is being used to indicate an alternative to “lines”, an item number designation or is a further descriptor of “lines”.
Claim 15 recites “line (path)”. It is unclear if “(path)” is being used to indicate an alternative to “line”, an item number designation or is a further descriptor of “line”.
Claim 22 recites “a disparity”. Claim 21 already recites “a disparity” so it is unclear if these two recitations are referring to the same thing or different disparities.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haeusler (US20210209407A1).
Claim 1
Haeusler teaches a robotic tool system (Figure 2) comprising: a scanner (108), configured to capture spatial data in the form of a point cloud of an object and its surroundings (Figure 2 shows the scanner (108) capturing point cloud data (132) of an object (workpiece, 102).); a processor (112), configured to: allocate the spatial data to cells of a cellular space (Figure 2 and ¶0047 “The computing device 104 can then convert the laser returns into a 3D point cloud 132 in the robot frame 138”.); determine one or more characteristics of a cell according to data of adjacent cells (The location of a particular cell in the tessellation/point cloud is based on the overall data gathered, which includes the data from adjacent cells. The claim does not specify what a “characteristic” entails.); and configure a robotic tool to operate on the object at least in part according to the one or more characteristics. (¶0062 “Based on the 3D pose of the workpiece 102 relative to the robotic device 106, the computing device 104 can control operation of the robotic device 106. For example, the computing device 104 can control the robotic device 106 to sand the workpiece 102, grip the workpiece 102 using a robotic arm and gripper, move the workpiece 102, drill, paint, or weld the workpiece 102, and/or change its orientation and position in the environment relative to the workpiece 102.“)
Claim 2
Haeusler teaches the robotic tool system of claim 1, wherein the cellular space comprises a plurality of uniformly sized cells. (Figure 2)
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US20210308862A1).
Claim 1
Lin teaches a robotic tool system (800) comprising: a scanner (sensors, ¶0028-0029), configured to capture spatial data in the form of a point cloud of an object and its surroundings (Figure 8 shows objects (810) that are captured in the point cloud as shown in Figure 4.); a processor (¶0063), configured to: allocate the spatial data to cells of a cellular space (Figure 4) determine one or more characteristics of a cell according to data of adjacent cells (Figure 4 shows characteristics (location, occupation, proximity to occupied) are determined according to the data of the point cloud, which includes data from adjacent cells.); and configure a robotic tool to operate on the object at least in part according to the one or more characteristics. (¶0055 and Figure 6A-6B teach the robotic tool (600) is operated in a path defined by the information gathered from the sensors. The robot operates on the object (640) during the path.)
Claim 3
Lin teaches the robotic tool system of claim 2, wherein the cellular space is three-dimensional (¶0031 “The binary matrix 430 is a three-dimensional (3D) matrix representing the workspace 302…”), and each of the cells corresponds to a location (Figure 4), and optionally an orientation, in three-dimensional space, and wherein the cells are cubic or spherical in shape. (¶0033 “…each cell is a cube having 5×5 mm sides..”. )
Claim 6
Lin teaches the robotic tool system of claim 1, wherein first characteristics of the one or more of the cells are initially determined (Figure 4 shows the first characteristic (occupation) is determined.), and second characteristics of the one or more cells are determined based upon the first characteristics. (Figure 4 shows the second characteristic (proximity to occupation) is determined based on whether the a cell is occupied or not.)
Claim 7
Lin teaches the robotic tool system of claim 6, wherein the one or more characteristics of the cell includes a neighbourhood pattern, the neighbourhood pattern comprising a spatial pattern of a characteristic of the adjacent cells. (Figure 4 shows some of the characteristics determined are whether the neighboring cells are occupied or not and the distance to said occupied cells in the “neighborhood” of cells.)
Claim 8
Lin teaches the robotic tool system of claim 7, wherein the neighbourhood pattern may be represented by a code or sequence, indicating which of the adjacent cells have a characteristic. (Figure 4 shows the cells have a code (number indicating their proximity to the nearest occupied cell) that indicates occupation of a neighboring or adjacent cell.)
Claim 9
Lin teaches the robotic tool system of claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to compare neighbourhood patterns of adjacent cells, to determine patterns thereof. (¶0034 teaches the distance field matrix (440) is computed. Figure 4 shows the matrix (440) contains patterns of occupation distances between adjacent cells, and the pattern of increasing distance between adjacent cells is also computed.)
Claim 10
Lin teaches the robotic tool system of claim 7, wherein the neighbourhood pattern is three dimensional. (¶0035 “In actual practice, where the distance field matrix 440 is a 3D matrix, the distance value is computed in three dimensions (the square root of the sum of the squares of the distances in three directions).”)
Claim 11
Lin teaches the robotic tool system of claim 1, wherein the one or more characteristics of the cell include a score, the score comprising a weighted combination of two or more scores relating to different characteristics. (Figure 4 shows each cell has two or more scores associated with it, a binary 1 or 0 indicating an occupation/non-occupation, and a distance score based on whether the cell is occupied or not followed by its proximity to an occupied cell. This is a combination of two or more scores relating to different characteristics.)
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 15-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lonsberry (US20220016776A1).
Claim 1
Lonsberry teaches a robotic tool system (Figure 3) comprising: a scanner (sensors, 102), configured to capture spatial data in the form of a point cloud of an object and its surroundings (¶0053 “In some embodiments, the sensor(s) 102 described herein can be configured to observe and collect data of all regions including the region around the welding tip.”); a processor (108, ¶0057), configured to: allocate the spatial data to cells of a cellular space (¶0061 teaches the pixels of the point cloud are categorized based on the x, y, z, red, green and blue information.) determine one or more characteristics of a cell according to data of adjacent cells (¶0061 teaches characteristics (location) are determined according to the data of the point cloud, which includes data from adjacent cells.); and configure a robotic tool to operate on the object at least in part according to the one or more characteristics. (¶0062 “The controller 108 can determine a desired state of the part 112, fixture 116, welding robot 110, and/or seam based on the seam recognition and classification.”; ¶0091 “For example, prior to welding operations, welding instructions included in the robotic weld program can include a motion/trajectory (e.g., weld path) for the welding robot and/or the motorized fixtures based on an initial estimated state or an initial desired state.”.)
Claim 13
Lonsberry teaches the robotic tool system of claim 1, further configured to identify markings on the object (¶0071 “the controller 108 can be configured to recognize and measure root gap, hole, void, and weld and update robotic weld program based on recognition in order to produce more precise welds.”), and configure a robotic tool to operate on the object at least in part according to the identified markings. (¶0071 “update robotic weld program based on recognition”)
Claim 15
Lonsberry teaches the robotic tool system of claim 13, configured to scan the object, detect the markings (¶0071 “The two-dimensional images and the three-dimensional point cloud data from the sensor(s) 102 can be used to recognize the root gap, hole, void, or weld…”), and generate a point cloud comprising detected markings (¶0071 “two-dimensional images and the three-dimensional point cloud data from the sensor(s) 102”), wherein the point cloud comprising the detecting marking is filtered or processed to generate a line (path). (¶0071 “…recognize the root gap, hole, void, or weld and further can be used to adapt and/or update the robotic weld program to account for the root gap, hole, void, or weld.”)
Claim 16
Lonsberry teaches the robotic tool system of claim 1, further configured to receive a model associated with the object (¶0063 “In some embodiments, the controller can determine an estimated state of the part 112, fixture 116, welding robot 110, and/or seam based on one or more a priori models…”.), and to align the spatial data with the model. (¶0063 “the controller 108 can implement geometric comparator techniques to compare the estimated state to the desired state.”)
Claim 17
Lonsberry teaches the robotic tool system of claim 16, configured to align features (e.g. edges and/or surfaces) of the spatial data with features (e.g. edges and/or surfaces) of the model. (¶0063 “the controller 108 can implement geometric comparator techniques to compare the estimated state to the desired state.” The comparison between the estimated (measured) and desired (CAD model) data includes comparison of surfaces.)
Claim 18
Lonsberry teaches the robotic tool system of claim 16, configured to measure a deviation between the object and the model, and refine the model according to the deviation. (¶0083 “Additionally or alternatively, CAD model can be updated based on scanned data of the part(s) 112 during, between, or after the welding process.”)
Claim 19
Lonsberry teaches the robotic tool system of claim 16, configured align the spatial data with the model using partial model data in the form of a slice or portion of the model. (¶0063 “The controller 108 can then compare the estimated state to the desired state. For instance, the controller 108 can implement geometric comparator techniques to compare the estimated state to the desired state.” The comparison of the geometry of the estimated (measured) and desired (CAD model) state includes partial, or a portion of model data.)
Claim 21
Lonsberry teaches the robotic tool system of claim 1, further configured to scan the object (¶0091 “During the welding process, the sensors can provide data of the workspace (e.g., part being welded, seam being welded, weld tip, etc.). Based on this data, an updated desired state can be determined.”) after one or more tasks are performed thereon, and compare same with a predefined model, and output a disparity between the scanned data and a predefined model. (¶0083 “CAD model can be updated based on scanned data of the part(s) 112 during, between, or after the welding process.” The CAD model being updated indicates the capability of the system of Lonsberry of (1) measuring the workpiece after welding is completed; (2) comparing the estimated (measured) state with the desired (CAD model) state; (3) updating the model. The changes to the model are a representation of the disparity.)
Claim 22
Lonsberry teaches the robotic tool system of claim 21, further configured to visualise a disparity between the scanned data and a predefined model. (¶0084 “system 100 can optionally include a user interface 106…graphical user interface (GUI), touchscreen GUI, a combination thereof, and/or the like.” This teaching represents the system of Lonsberry as having a visual user interface that is capable of performing the claimed intended use.)
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gard (US20220305593A1) (the third named inventor is used to prevent confusion with the other Lonsberry reference).
Claim 1
Gard teaches a robotic tool system (Figure 2) comprising: a scanner (sensors, 102), configured to capture spatial data in the form of a point cloud of an object and its surroundings (¶0021 “The sensors 102 are configured to capture information about the workspace 101.”); a processor (¶0026 “In some examples, the controller 108 includes or is a processor”), configured to: allocate the spatial data to cells of a cellular space (¶0032 “For example, if the sensor(s) 102 are color cameras having red, green, and blue channels, then the six degrees of freedom can be {x-position, y-position, z-position, red-intensity, green-intensity, and blue-intensity}.” This is a teaching of the “cells”, or points in the point cloud, being assigned values within the space of the point cloud.) determine one or more characteristics of a cell according to data of adjacent cells (¶0032 teaches characteristics (location) are determined according to the data of the point cloud, which includes data from adjacent cells.); and configure a robotic tool to operate on the object at least in part according to the one or more characteristics. (¶0033 “The controller 108 (FIG. 1) is configured to generate the 3D point clouds 400, 500 based on 2D images captured by the sensors 102, as described above. The controller 108 may then use the point clouds 400, 500 (or, in some examples, image data useful to generate the point clouds 400, 500) to identify and locate seams, such as the seams 406, 506, to plan a welding path along the seams 406, 506, and to lay welds along the seams 406, 506 according to the path plan and using the robot 110 (FIG. 1).”)
Claim 20
Gard teaches the robotic tool system of claim 1, further configured to identify planes in the scanned spatial data, extrapolate the planes, and identify points of intersection between the extrapolated planes to generated lines (paths) based upon the intersection of planes. (Figure 4 shows a seam (406) that is the intersections of the planes of part (402) and part (404) extended until they intersect. ¶0033 teaches the controller uses the point cloud to locate and identify the seams (406) and plan a welding path along the seams (intersection of the planes).)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US10671081B1
2019-04-16
Figures 1-2 teach a robotic tool (100) comprising a scanner (sensor (108) “3D laser scanner”); a processor (102) / control system that creates a cellular space / point cloud (Figure 2) and determines one or more characteristics (whether a voxel is occupied) and operate a robot (100).
US20210209407A1
2020-01-02
Scanner (108); point cloud (132); processor (112); cells (Figure 2); robot tool (106)(¶0062)
US20210308862A1
2020-04-03
Scanner (sensors ¶0028-0029); point cloud (Figure 4, Item 420); processor (¶0063); cells (“set of points” ¶0031); robot tool (210)
US20220305593A1
2022-02-24
Scanner (sensors 102 ¶0021); point cloud (Figure 4); processor (108, ¶0026); cells (¶0032 “In examples, the 3D image data can be collated by the controller 108 in a manner such that the point cloud generated from the data can have six degrees of freedom. For instance, each point in the point cloud may represent an infinitesimally small position in 3D space.“); robot tool (800)
Figure 4 shows a seam (406) that is the intersections of the planes of part (402) and part (404) extended until they intersect. ¶0033 teaches the controller uses the point cloud to locate and identify the seams (406) and plan a welding path along the seams (intersection of the planes).
US20220016776A1
2021-07-19
Scanner (sensors (102)); point cloud (¶0055); processor (108, ¶0057); cells (¶0061 teaches the pixels of the point cloud are categorized based on the x, y, z, red, green and blue information); robot tool (Figure 2)
US20160016312A1
2014-03-17
Scanner (¶0037 “high-power laser scanner”); point cloud (¶0080 “The resulting refined and aligned point clouds are converted into a polygonal mesh that can be imported into professional model editing software and used for, in one example, manual model generation”); processor (“2. This device digitizes the sensor data at the sensor head and transmists the data to the microcontroller over a high-speed digital data link.
“); cells (“The resulting refined and aligned point clouds are converted into a polygonal mesh that can be imported into professional model editing software and used for, in one example, manual model generation”); robot tool (¶0125 “The Robot State Trajectory Generator converts the optimized coverage plan from a list of two dimensional surface coordinates into a temporal sequence of manipulator states that satisfy both the surface process velocity requirements and the intrinsic manipulator velocity and acceleration constraints.”)
US20220152826A1
2021-03-11
Scanner (¶0068 “A scene point cloud 104 and/or an object point cloud 106 may be generated from one or more systems comprising at least a camera and a depth sensor.”); point cloud (104/106); processor (¶0088); cells (¶0126 “voxels”); robot tool (Figure 3)
US20160375524A1
2015-06-24
Scanner (ToF image sensor 216A); point cloud (¶0025 “render the depth map into a 3D space called a point cloud”); processor (¶0025 “data processing circuitry 206”); cells (¶0025 “voxels”); robot tool (¶0054 “Shown in FIG. 3B, a robotic welder 502 is welding seam 506 of workpiece 504. The robotic welder 502 is controlled by resource 302 which guides the robotic welder 502 based on spatial data from ToF camera 102.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights