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
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 and 10-18 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. 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 5, 8-9 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.
Conclusion
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