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 . 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 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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2026, was filed after the mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits but before the close of prosecution. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 03/25/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-19 and 21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-19 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hsu et al., US 20230129623 A1, herein referred to as Hsu.
Regarding claim 1,
Hsu discloses the following:
a sensor operable to determine a position of a tool relative to the sensor (Figs. 1-2A, Paragraph 0019)
system may use a laser cross-sensor to calibrate and determine a tool center point
a controller coupled to the sensor (Figs. 1-2A)
a processing unit may be coupled to the laser cross-sensor
cause the tool to move along a path defined by a first predefined pattern and a second predefined pattern relative to the sensor, wherein the first predefined pattern and the second predefined pattern differ from each other (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
the robotic arm may move the tool to be engaged with the sensing unit, which can be considered a first predefined pattern
the robotic tool may later be moved such that the center point is located at the center point Os (see Os point in Figs. 4-5), which can be considered a second defined pattern
both movement operations are different from each other
define, using the sensor, a base frame associated with the sensor based on movement of the tool associated with the first predefined pattern (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
the cross-laser sensors and orifice plate may have a given set of coordinates when the robotic arm performs the first defined pattern of moving the tool to engage the sensors
define, using the sensor, a tool frame associated with the tool based on movement of the tool associated with the second predefined pattern (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
after the robot moves the tool to the center point of the laser sensor, the coordinates of the tool may be fully established
determine a tool center point associated with the tool frame of the tool (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
a tool center point may be established after the calibration procedure is complete
Regarding claim 2,
Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hsu further discloses the following:
align an axis of the base frame with a detection path associated with the sensor (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
the laser cross-sensor may rotate and translate in order to establish coordinate points while the tool is being detected by the sensor
the actual laser sensors may each be defined as Xs, Ys, Zs, which can be considered an alignment of the sensor and the base frame (sensor frame, see claim 1 rationale)
Regarding claim 3,
Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hsu further discloses the following:
define, using the sensor, the tool frame in response to determining a first set of positions along a first side of the tool relative to the sensor (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
the laser cross-sensor may determine the tool frame by sensing the positioning of the tool while it moves relative to the laser cross-sensor
when the tool moves, different sides of the tool interact with the laser cross-sensor at different points
Regarding claim 4,
Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Hsu further discloses the following:
determine, using the sensor, the first set of positions in response causing the tool to move along a first reference plane that is transverse to a detection path of the sensor (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
when the tool is moving during the establish of the tool frame and tool center point, the movement occurs in the plane defined by the laser cross-sensor
this movement can be considered transverse to the detection path of the sensor
Regarding claim 5,
Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Hsu further discloses the following:
determine, using the sensor, a calibration offset relative to a center of the tool in response to causing the tool to rotate about a first axis (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
when the laser cross-sensor rotates while detecting the tool, the tool effectively rotates about an axis that is off-center from the center of the laser cross-sensor
this offset can be determined during the calibration process
Regarding claim 6,
Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Hsu further discloses the following:
cause the first side of the tool to face towards the sensor (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
the robot tool may be moved to engage with the laser cross-sensor
when it engages and is detected, at least one side will interact with one of the laser sensors within the laser cross-sensor
determine, using the sensor, the first set of position (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
after initially moving the tool to engage with the laser cross-sensor, a set of points may be determined when the laser cross-sensor rotates and translates during the calibration process
when the laser cross-sensor translates in the z-direction, a plurality of positions along a given side of the tool may be determined
cause a second side of the tool to face towards the sensor, the second side opposite the first side (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
when the tool is present between two of the four lasers in the laser cross-sensor, two opposite sides of the tool may face towards each of the given laser sensors
determine, using the sensor, a second set of positions along the second side of the tool (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
when the tool is positioned between two opposite laser sensors 113, the sensors may detect different positions along the tool
when the laser cross-sensor translates in the z-direction, a plurality of positions along a given side of the tool may be determined
determine the tool center point based on the determined first set of positions and the determined second set of positions (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
a tool center point may be determined based on the positions determined through the movement of both the laser cross-sensor and the tool
Regarding claim 7,
Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Hsu further discloses the following:
cause the tool to pivot from a first orientation to a second orientation (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
the tool may move to engage with the laser cross-sensor
the movement to engage and to position at the sensor center point may be considered a pivot from a first orientation to a second orientation
define, using the sensor, the tool frame in response to causing the tool in the second orientation to repeat movement corresponding to a portion of the second predefined pattern associated with the first orientation (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039)
the tool moving to engage the laser cross-sensor and the tool moving to a center point of the laser cross-sensor may both have an overlap in motion (tool engaging with multiple lasers initially may correspond to a portion of movement for positioning at the center of the laser cross-center)
examiner notes that the initial movement has the tool engaging the laser cross-sensor at a ‘sensing range’ of the cross-laser lines 114 which can include sensing through each of the four lasers
Regarding claim 11,
Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hsu further discloses the following:
the sensor is a laser or a touch probe (Figs. 1-2A, Paragraph 0019)
sensor may be a laser cross-sensor
Regarding claim 12, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1. Additionally, Hsu discloses an automated device (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039; system may include a robotic arm which can be considered an automated device), and a tool secured to the automated device at an interface, wherein the automated device is operable to move the tool relative to a workpiece (Figs. 3-5, Paragraphs 0020-0021, 0028-0039; system may include a tool mounted to a robotic arm; the robotic may move towards the laser cross-sensor which can generally be considered a workpiece; tooling is also able to be used for performing certain actions which requires the tooling to be engaged with a workpiece (see welding, etc. in 0021).
Regarding claims 13-15, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 2, 5, and 7, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 2, 5, and 7.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 17-19, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 2, and 6-7, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 2, and 6-7.
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hsu, and in view of Rossano et al., WO 2004108364 A1, herein referred to as Rossano.
Regarding claim 8, Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hsu further discloses the tool being a cutter (Paragraph 0021; tool may include a cutter), but fails to explicitly disclose the tool includes a saw blade. However, Rossano, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the tool includes a saw blade (at least Page 24 first paragraph; a saw blade tool may be used). Therefore, from the teaching of Rossano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Hsu to include the tool includes a saw blade, as taught/suggested by Rossano. The motivation to do so would be to use the calibration system on a well-known tool. This can expand the functionality of the system by increasing the variety of tools that can be used.
Regarding claim 9, Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hsu further discloses the tool being a cutter (Paragraph 0021; tool may include a cutter), but fails to explicitly disclose the tool includes a fluid jet cutter. However, Rossano teaches the tool includes a fluid jet cutter (Page 1 first paragraph; invention may be used with water jet cutting). Therefore, from the teaching of Rossano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Hsu to include the tool includes a fluid jet cutter, as taught/suggested by Rossano. The motivation to do so would be to use the calibration system on a well-known tool. This can expand the functionality of the system by increasing the variety of tools that can be used.
Regarding claim 10, Hsu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hsu further discloses the tool being a cutter (Paragraph 0021; tool may include a cutter), but fails to explicitly disclose includes a calibration tool that is representative of, and has known geometry correspond to, another tool to be subsequently used with an automated device. However, Rossano teaches the tool includes a calibration tool that is representative of, and has known geometry corresponding to, another tool to be subsequently used with an automated device (Page 6 first paragraph, Page 15 third paragraph; system may use an elongated probe for calibration; the elongated probe may operate in the same way as a tool which can be considered as a calibration tool being representative of a tool; the probe may have known and/or calibrated geometry to approximate a given tool). Therefore, from the teaching of Rossano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Hsu to include the tool includes a calibration tool representative of another tool, as taught/suggested by Rossano. The motivation to do so would be to use the calibration system on a well-known tool. This can expand the functionality of the system by increasing the variety of tools that can be used.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hsu and in view of Huang et al., US 20220097234 A1, herein referred to as Huang.
Regarding claim 21, Hsu discloses a laser sensor (Figs. 1-2A, Paragraph 0019; the sensor may be a laser sensor) but fails to explicitly disclose the sensor being only one laser, the laser being stationary relative to a base of the automated device, and the moving includes moving the tool relative to the base of the automated device. However, Huang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the sensor being only one laser (at least Figs. 3,8, Paragraph 0048; the system may include a stationary beam sensor that emits a single beam), the laser being stationary relative to a base of the automated device (at least Figs. 3, 8, Paragraph 0048; the system may include a stationary beam sensor that emits a single beam; the beam sensor may be fixed relative to the robotic arm system and its base), and the moving includes moving the tool relative to the base of the automated device (at least Figs. 3, 8, Paragraph 0048; the tooling may move relative to the robotic arm base as the robotic base is fixed). Therefore, from the teaching of Huang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Hsu to include the sensor being only one laser, the laser being stationary relative to a base of the automated device, and the moving includes moving the tool relative to the base of the automated device, as taught/suggested by Huang. The motivation to do so would be to use an obvious-to-try method for calibration of a tool as utilizing a fixed sensor to calibrate a moving object is well-known in the field, and can provide adequate accuracy for localization of an object (namely a tool connected to a robotic arm as seen in both Hsu and Huang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims 1, 12, and 16, Applicant is arguing that the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant is arguing that the prior art of Hsu fails to disclose the limitation of “defining, using the sensor, a base frame associated with the sensor based on movement of the tool associated with the first predetermined pattern”. Applicant specifically points to 0022, 0024, and 0034 to show that the sensor frame is established at a design stage. Applicant contends that the orifice center point Os is known relative to the center point Om, however, the cross-laser sensor is capable of rotating and translating based on various motor actuation. Even if reference frame conversions are known, a reference frame translating and/or rotating still results in a new frame of reference being determined as the Os and Om points, and their relationship to each other, vary. As such, first and second movement patterns during the calibration process will results in both a base frame of the sensor and a base frame of the tool being established.
Additionally, regarding claim 6, Applicant is arguing that the prior of Hsu fails to disclose the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant is arguing the Hsu only discloses detecting two points on the tool and not those which are on opposite sides of the tool. However, Hsu discloses that the cross-laser sensor translates and rotates to detect points on the tool to perform a center point calibration. This causes the lasers to effectively sense multiple sides of the tooling during a full rotation operation (see at least 0030; a full rotation will result in opposite sides of the tool being detected), as well as determining another set of points based on up and down translation performed (see at least 0030). In essence, the cross-laser sensors rotate for one full circle (capturing points on opposite sides of the tool at a given level), traverses upward or downward (which results in a new sensed level of the tool), and then performs another full rotation (which again captures points on opposite sides of the tool). This effectively results in a plurality of points at two different levels that comprise point sets that are opposite from each other on a given level.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights