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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 consisting of claims 11-16 and 18 in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 11-12, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leon (US 2019/0321974).
As per claims 11 and 18, Leon discloses a method for determining at least one operation to be performed by at least one robot to process at least one component, the method comprising:
determining, by an electronic computing device, product data characterizing the at least one component to be processed by way of the robot in the at least one operation (see at least para. 30-31 for the initial configuration which represents the location of objects in an environment determined by sensors of the robot);
determining, by the electronic computing device, system data that characterize a system containing the at least the robot for performing the at least one operation (see at least para. 60 for simulation robot that is a replica to the real robot to be utilized for the object manipulation task; see at least para. 81 for determining state of a robot);
determining, by the electronic computing device, process data that characterize the at least one operation (see at least para. 31-33 for initial configuration and goal configuration which represent the start location of an object and the desired location of the object after the task is completed);
generating, by the electronic computing device, a simulation model that simulates at least the system and the at least one component based on the product data, the system data and the process data (see at least para. 60 for simulator 320 of object manipulation controller 300 generates simulation robot used for object manipulation task and generates simulation of the environment including objects present in the environment);
carrying out, by the electronic computing device, a simulation by way of the simulation model, whereby simulation data are determined by the electronic computing device that describe multiple step groups, wherein the respective step groups contain multiple sub-steps of the at least one operation that are different from each other (see at least para. 55 for simulator 320 simulates action phase sequence after it has been generated; see at least para. 32 for action phases perform an action such as grasp, move, release, etc.; see at least para. 95 for action phase parameterized by parameters that may correspond to position, velocity, acceleration, torque, etc.);
creating, by the electronic computing device, a target function of an optimization problem, wherein the target function includes the sub-steps of the step groups as parameters (see at least para. 20 and 33 for adjusting action phase parameters to reduce value of the cost function); and
minimizing, by the electronic computing device, the target function, whereby one of the respective sub-steps of the respective step group is selected from the respective step group and the selected sub-steps are strung together, and whereby the at least one operation is determined (see at least para. 20 and 33 for adjusting action phase parameters to reduce value of the cost function; action phase sequence comprises action phases and their corresponding parameters strung together).
As per claim 12, Leon further discloses controlling, by the electronic computing device or by another electronic computing device, the robot such that the robot performs the at least one operation (see at least para. 40 for the action phase sequence can be executed on a real robot).
As per claim 16, Leon further discloses wherein the process data characterize at least one of: at least one trajectory along which at least a part of the robot is to be moved; at least a speed at which at least the part of the robot is to be moved; an application distance between a tool of the robot intended to perform the at least one operation and the at least one component; a grinding parameter, which is a way in which points of a trajectory along which at least part of the robot is moved in order to perform the at least one operation, are traced and/or interpolated; at least one application parameter characterizing the at least one operation (see at least para. 61 for acceptability criteria such as maximum torque applied, maximum velocity of a component of the robot, maximum acceleration of a component of the robot, etc).
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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon (US 2019/0321974) in view of in view of Colasanto (US 2021/0220994).
As per claim 13, Leon is silent regarding, but Colasanto teaches wherein the product data characterize a geometry of the at least one component and/or an interference geometry to be avoided by the robot (see at least para. 42 for geometric model representing operational workspace 104 includes objects in the operational environment; see at least para. 36 for shared workspace 104 includes work items which the robot manipulates as part of a task).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Leon with the features of Colasanto because modeling an object geometry allows a simulation to determine whether there is a collision with said object.
As per claim 14, Leon is silent regarding, but Colasanto teaches wherein the system data characterize robotic arms of the robot that are connected to each other in an articulated way (see at least para. 71 for robot model includes number of joints, number of links, and length of links; para. 17 of the specification as filed of the instant application defines “robot arms” as “robot axes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Leon with the features of Colasanto because having a virtual robot that is modeled closely to the actual robot provides for simulating robotic movements that more accurately resemble how the actual robot moves.
As per claim 15, Leon is silent regarding, but Colasanto teaches wherein the system data characterize at least one tool of the robot that can be moved relative to the at least one component by way of the robot and that is intended for carrying out the at least one operation (see at least para. 71 for robot model includes type of end effector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Leon with the features of Colasanto because having a virtual end effector that is modeled closely to the actual end effector provides for a simulation that more accurately reflects the actual end effector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights