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 statements (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024, 09/27/2024, and 03/17/2025, were filed before the mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 09/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation of “… wherein the tool includes a calibration tool representative of another tool”. However, it is unclear what the “another tool” is or what it refers to, and as such, the claim is indefinite.
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 defined pattern relative to the sensor (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
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 and 20 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 representative of another tool. However, Rossano teaches the tool includes a calibration tool representative of another tool (Page 6 first 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). 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.
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 8 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 8.
Conclusion
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