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 .
Status of the Application
This final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment received by the Office on 30 April 2026.
Claims 1-20 have been presented in the application, of which, claim 8 is cancelled, claims 9, 13 are currently amended, claims 1-7, 10-12, 14-19 were previously presented, and claim 20 is new. Accordingly, pending claims 1-7 and 9-20 are addressed herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-13 of the amendment received 30 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-12 and 14-18 as being unpatentable over Gibson in view of Offline Eiger have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 10, Applicant argues that Gibson is silent regarding an offline programming system and therefore fails to disclose the features of Claim 1 that are required to occur in an offline programming system (i.e., providing candidate target points, providing actual reference points, modifying the candidate target points based on the actual reference points and providing the target robot program). The examiner disagrees. The rejection recognizes that Gibson is silent regarding the “offline” character of programming system 12 (“Gibson is silent regarding the programming system being ‘an offline’ programming system,” Office Action, page 3). However, under the obviousness rejection, the offline character is provided by the Offline Eiger reference not Gibson. Silence in Gibson is the reason Offline Eiger was applied. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On pages 10-11, Applicant argues that if Gibson were modified so that the programming system is an offline programming system, there would be no robot controller left to execute a target robot program and thereby cause the industrial robot to perform movements in relation to a surface, and that the combination of Gibson and Offline Eiger therefore does not arrive at the invention recited by claim 1. The examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument conflates two distinct elements of the claim. Claim 1 requires (i) an offline programming system in which the candidate target points are provided, the actual reference points are provided, and the modification occurs, and (ii) subsequent execution of the resulting target robot program by the industrial robot. As recited in the claim, requirements (i) and (ii) are sequential steps, not mutually exclusive steps. In conventional industrial robot architecture, an offline programming system generates a complete program that is later transferred to the robot’s controller for execution. Converting Gibson’s programming activity to offline does not eliminate, disable, or remove the robot controller that performs printing program execution. Offline Eiger illustrates this architecture. Offline Eiger generates a complete print program offline; the finished program is later transferred to the printer, which then executes the program. The same sequential relationship is applied to Gibson; the programming steps of claim 1 are performed offline (using the technique of Offline Eiger), while Gibson’s industrial robot and its controller remain available to execute the finished target robot program. Because the combination of Gibson and Offline Eiger retains both an offline programming system and a robot capable of executing the target robot program, the combination meets every element of claim 1.
On page 11, Applicant argues that Gibson’s CPU 12 controls the components of the 3D printer and is therefore online, and that Gibson’s paragraph 0065 expressly teaches online trimming or modification of the 3D computer model. The examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument mischaracterizes the timing of the modification step disclosed in Gibson. While CPU 12 does control printer components and closed loop tracking occurs during motion, Gibson expressly states that the irregular surface is preferably scanned prior to printing and that the computer then trims or modifies the 3D model so the robot can follow the true surface profile (Gibson, paragraph 0065). The modification itself can occur before execution begins. Even if portions of Gibson’s overall control architecture remain online, the Offline Eiger supplies the offline character of the programming system in which the candidate target points, actual reference points and the modification step are performed. Further, nothing in the claim requires the combination of Gibson and Offline Eiger to preserve every online aspect of Gibson’s disclosed control loop.
On page 11, Applicant argues that Offline Eiger is completely silent regarding an offline modification of candidate target points based on actual reference points, that the Examiner has failed to identify any such disclosure, and that the absence of that disclosure confirms any modification in Offline Eiger is performed in an online control system; therefore, no combination of Gibson and Offline Eiger can arrive at the terms of claim 1. The examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument does not correctly account for the respective roles of the two references in the rejection. Gibson is relied upon for the teaching of providing actual reference points indicative of a true surface profile and of modifying candidate target points (the 3D model / toolpaths) based on those actual reference points (Gibson, paragraph 0065). Offline Eiger is relied upon solely for the well-known technique of performing the programming steps in an offline programming system. The combination therefore places Gibson’s surface scan inside of an offline programming system. Offline Eiger need not disclose the surface profile modification. That element is already disclosed by Gibson. The combination teaches every element of claim 1. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 11, Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides technical advantages not achieved by the prior art, specifically that modifying target points for an industrial robot in an offline programming system based on actual reference points indicative of a true profile of a surface allows the method to more efficiently handle a particular true shape of the surface and produces more accurate movements of the industrial robot (specification, paragraph 0009), and that this approach is also more accurate and less computationally heavy than modifying a robot program that has already been generated directly based on the candidate target points (specification, paragraph 0011). The examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument is a mere assertion of secondary consideration. Secondary considerations must be supported by objective evidence of record. No comparative data, experimental results, or other evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the claimed offline-modification workflow actually yields the asserted advantages relative to the combination of Gibson and Offline Eiger. Unsupported statements in the specification do not constitute the required evidence and therefore do not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that the combination of Gibson and Offline Eiger is improper because the references are drawn from different technical fields, the examiner has not articulated a sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in industrial robot offline programming to consult a consumer 3D printer user manual, and the Examiner’s rationale fails to explain why such a person would look to Offline Eiger or what specific problem in Gibson would be solved by adopting an offline programming paradigm. The examiner disagrees. Both Gibson and Offline Eiger are directed to computer-controlled systems that generate toolpaths for machines that deposit material relative to a surface. Offline programming of such machines is itself a conventional technique in the industrial-robot and additive-manufacturing arts. A person of ordinary skill, seeking to generate Gibson’s surface0adapted toolpaths in a manner that does not require the programming computer to remain continuously connected to the robot during program generation, would have found it obvious to apply the offline programming technique known from Offline Eiger. The predictable result is that the candidate target points, actual reference points and modification step of claim 1 are performed in an offline programming system, while the finished target robot program is later executed by Gibson’s industrial robot.
On pages 12-13, Applicant argues that the proposed combination of Gibson and Offline Eiger is internally inconsistent. Gibson teaches an adaptive, sensor driven feedback loop in which the surface is measured during the manufacturing operation and the toolpath is modified in real time (Gibson, paragraphs 0055-0057; Fig. 8, steps 1004-1008). This is an online control paradigm. Offline Eiger, by contrast, is a pure offline paradigm in which all parameters are set before execution. Combining the two would require restructuring Gibson’s express teaching of in-process or adaptive control and eliminating the real-time adaptive capability that is central to Gibson. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not have been motivated to make the combination. The examiner disagrees. The combination places only the programming steps recited in claim i1 (providing candidate target points, providing actual reference points and modifying the candidate points) into an offline programming system. Gibson discloses that the surface may be scanned and the model modified prior to printing (Gibson, paragraph 0065). Performing those pre-execution steps offline does not require elimination of continuous tracking or closed-loop correction during subsequent execution of the finished target robot program. Live pose feedback during motion may be retained exactly as taught by Gibson. Consequently, the combination does not alter Gibson’s principle of operation for achieving accuracy during printing and remains a predictable application of a known-offline programming technique.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-12 and 14-18 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, 6-7, 10-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al. (US 2018/0361729 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Gibson”) in view of Offline Eiger [Markforged. (2020). Offline Eiger: User Manual].
Regarding claim 1, Gibson teaches a method of controlling movements of an industrial robot (Figs. 1, 3, 5 and 7, element 16) in relation to a surface (Figs. 1, 3, 5 and 7, element 18, 86; paragraphs 0036, 0065), the method comprising: providing (Fig. 8, step 1000) a plurality of candidate target points (received printing instructions include a “toolpath” which is a sequence of target spatial positions) for the industrial robot in a programming system (Figs. 1-3, element 12; abstract, paragraph 0013, 0036, 0048 and 0055); providing (Figs. 8-9, step 1004, 2004) a plurality of actual reference points (via Figs. 1, 3 and 5, element 26) in the programming system, the actual reference points being indicative of a true profile (Fig. 7, element 86) of the surface (paragraph 0010, 0053, 0057-0058, 0065); modifying (Figs. 8-9, step 1008, 2012) the candidate target points in the programming system based on the actual reference points to provide a plurality of modified target points for the industrial robot (paragraph 0010, 0057, 0061, 0065); providing (Figs. 8-9, step 1010, 2016) a target robot program for the industrial robot based on the modified target points (paragraph 0057, 0061); and executing (Figs. 8-9, step 1010, 2018) the target robot program in a robot controller to thereby cause the industrial robot to perform movements in relation to the surface (paragraph 0057, 0061).
Gibson is silent regarding the programming system being “an offline” programming system (pp. 6-8 and 57-58). Offline Eiger teach a technique for programming a 3D printer using an offline programming system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to configure the method taught by Gibson as an offline programming system by applying the well-known technique taught by Offline Eiger. Application of the well-known technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including the programming system being an offline programming system.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Gibson and Offline Eiger teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the modification of the candidate target points is additionally made based on a user modification input indicative of a type of modification of the candidate target points (Offline Eiger, page 40, change infill; page 59, create supports).
Regarding claim 3, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the provision of the actual reference points comprises: providing a plurality of candidate reference points (true profile 86); and determining (Figs. 8-9, step 100, 2004) the actual reference points based on the candidate reference points (paragraphs 0010, 0053, 0057-0058, 0065).
Regarding claim 4, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the candidate target points are provided based on the candidate reference points. Note that the upper surface of the printed object 22 can be seen as the true profile after printing has begun. Accordingly, the plurality of candidate target points (i.e., the toolpath) is provided based on the previously printed layer.
Regarding claim 6, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises: for each candidate reference point, controlling the industrial robot to move to measure a position of the surface (via Fig. 1, element 26 attached to robot 16) associated with the candidate reference point; and determining the actual reference points based on the candidate reference points and the measured positions (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 7, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the method comprises: providing the candidate reference points in the offline programming system; providing a measurement robot program for the industrial robot based on the candidate reference points; and executing the measurement robot program in the robot controller to thereby cause the industrial robot to move to measure the positions of the surface associated with the candidate reference points (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 10, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the target robot program is an additive manufacturing robot program for controlling the industrial robot to perform additive manufacturing on the surface (paragraph 0003, 0048-0049, 0053).
Regarding claim 11, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the movements of the industrial robot in relation to the surface span over at least 2 meters (paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 12, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the industrial robot comprises at least six axes (paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 13, Gibson teaches a robot system comprising: an industrial robot (Figs. 1, 3, 5 and 7, element 16; paragraphs 0036); and a robot controller having a programming system (Figs. 1-3 and 8-9, element 12 and step 1000; paragraph 0014, 0036, 0048, 0055); wherein the programming system includes at least one first data processing device and at least one first memory having at least one first computer program stored thereon, the at least one first computer program including program code which, when executed by the at least one first data processing device (paragraph 0036), causes the at least one first data processing device to perform the steps of: providing (Fig. 8, step 1000) a plurality of candidate target points (received printing instructions include a “toolpath” which is a sequence of target spatial positions) for the industrial robot (abstract, paragraph 0013, 0036, 0048 and 0055); providing (Figs. 8-9, step 1004, 2004) a plurality of actual reference points (via Figs. 1, 3 and 5, element 26), the actual reference points being indicative of a true profile (Fig. 7, element 86) of the surface (paragraph 0010, 0053, 0057-0058, 0065); modifying (Figs. 8-9, step 1008, 2012) the candidate target points based on the actual reference points to provide a plurality of modified target points for the industrial robot (paragraph 0010, 0057, 0061, 0065); providing (Figs. 8-9, step 1010, 2016) a target robot program for the industrial robot based on the modified target points (paragraph 0057, 0061); and wherein the robot controller includes at least one second data processing device and at least one second memory having at least one second computer program stored thereon, the at least one second computer program including program code which, when executed by the at least one second data processing device (Figs. 1-3 and 8-9, element 12 and step 1000; paragraph 0014, 0036, 0048, 0055), causes the at least one second data processing device to perform the step of: executing (Figs. 8-9, step 1010, 2018) the target robot program to thereby cause the industrial robot to perform movements in relation to the surface (paragraph 0057, 0061).
Gibson is silent regarding the programming system being “an offline” programming system. Offline Eiger teach a technique for programming a 3D printer using an offline programming system. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to configure the system taught by Gibson as an offline programming system by applying the well-known technique taught by Offline Eiger. Application of the well-known technique to the prior art system would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and because such application would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including the programming system being an offline programming system.
Regarding claim 14, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the provision of the actual reference points comprises: providing a plurality of candidate reference points (true profile 86); and determining (Figs. 8-9, step 100, 2004) the actual reference points based on the candidate reference points (paragraphs 0010, 0053, 0057-0058, 0065).
Regarding claim 15, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the target robot program is an additive manufacturing robot program for controlling the industrial robot to perform additive manufacturing on the surface (paragraph 0003, 0048-0049, 0053).
Regarding claim 16, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the movements of the industrial robot in relation to the surface span over at least 2 meters (paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 17, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the industrial robot comprises at least six axes (paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 18, Gibson teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the method comprises: for each candidate reference point, controlling the industrial robot to move to measure a position of the surface (via Fig. 1, element 26 attached to robot 16) associated with the candidate reference point; and determining the actual reference points based on the candidate reference points and the measured positions (paragraph 0046).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 13 and 20 are allowed. Claims 5 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following claim(s) drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, is/are presented to Applicant for consideration:
Claim 1. A method of controlling movements of an industrial robot in relation to a surface, the method comprising:
providing a plurality of candidate target points for the industrial robot in an offline programming system;
providing a plurality of actual reference points in the offline programming system, the actual reference points being indicative of a true profile of the surface;
providing a user modification input indicative of a selected type of modification from a plurality of different modification types;
modifying the candidate target points in the offline programming system based on the actual reference points and in accordance with the selected type of modification to provide a plurality of modified target points for the industrial robot, wherein the modification is performed in the offline programming system prior to generation of the target robot program and comprises at least one of (i) reshaping an object to be manufactured relative to the surface or (ii) adding material between the object and the surface according to the selected type of modification;
providing a target robot program for the industrial robot based on the modified target points; and
executing the target robot program in a robot controller to thereby cause the industrial robot to perform movements in relation to the surface without switching between multiple reference coordinate systems during execution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reed (US 2006/0152533 A1) describes offline programming of industrial robots from 3D simulation data, followed by robot-mounted laser sensors measuring the actual positions of workpiece points. Corrections derived from the measured real positions are applied offline to revise the original design data and generate an accurate robot program for execution. Under the BRI, Reed anticipates claims 1 and 12 and is particularly relevant to the subject matter of claims 3-4, 6-7, 13, 18 and 20.
Rodrigues et al. "Robot trajectory planning using OLP and structured light 3D machine vision.” Rodrigues describes an offline programming method in which candidate control points defined on a CAD model are automatically adjusted by translating them onto a surface scanned with a robot mounted structured light sensor. The modified points are used to generate a robot trajectory that matches the true workpiece geometry, addressing CAD to part deviations. Under BRI, Rodrigues anticipates claims 1 and 12 and is highly relevant to the subject matter of claims 6, 13, 18 and 20.
Yan et al. (CN 110202575 A) describes an offline programming approach that generates a trajectory of feature points from a CAD model, has the robot execute that generated trajectory while measuring the actual surface with sensors, then compensates each feature point offline based on the measured data to produce a corrected trajectory program. Under BRI, Yan et al. anticipates claims 1 and 12 and is highly relevant to the subject matter of claims 6, 13, 18 and 20.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights