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 Claims
Pending
1-15
35 U.S.C. 101
1-6, 8-9, 12-15
35 U.S.C. 102
1-11, 13-15
35 U.S.C. 103
12
Priority
Applicant’s indication of National Stage information based on PCT/CN2022/095239 filed 05/26/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 10/23/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a detecting unit in claims 13 and 14; a calculating unit in claim 13; and a calibrating unit in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses the corresponding structure for a detecting unit in paragraph [0057]; a calculating unit in paragraph [0081]; and a calibrating unit in paragraph [0081]. Additional structure can be found in paragraph [0109].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, 13, 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
“1. A method for calibrating a thermal drift of a robot having at least one robot arms, the method comprising:
detecting, in response to a reference point on the at least one robot arms being moved to a preselected position, an actual position of the reference point;
calculating a deviation value between the preselected position and the actual position; and
calibrating, based on the deviation value, a planned position or a planned path that the at least one robot arms are intended to move to or move along, to derive a calibrated position or a calibrated path.”
“13. An apparatus for calibrating a thermal drift of a robot having at least one robot arms, the apparatus comprising:
a detecting unit for detecting, in response to a reference point on the at least one robot arms being moved to a preselected position, an actual position of the reference point;
a calculating unit for calculating a deviation value between the preselected position and the actual position; and
a calibrating unit for calibrating, based on the deviation value, a planned position or a planned path that the at least one robot arms are intended to move to or move along, to derive a calibrated position or a calibrated path.”
“14. A robot system comprising:
a robot having at least one robot arms; and
a detecting unit for detecting, in response to a reference point on the at least one robot arms being moved to a preselected position, an actual position of the reference point;
the robot comprises a processor configured to:
calculate a deviation value between the preselected position and the actual position; and
calibrate, based on the deviation value, a planned position or a planned path that the at least one robot arms are intended to move to or move along, to derive a calibrated position or a calibrated path.”
These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the mind, but for the recitation of “a robot having at least one robot arms” (claim 1), “an apparatus for calibrating a thermal drift of a robot having at least one robot arms, the apparatus comprising: a detecting unit for; a calculating unit for; a calibrating unit for” (claim 13), and “a robot system comprising: a robot having at least one robot arms; and a detecting unit for; the robot comprises a processor configured to” (claim 14). That is, other than reciting the italicized limitations above, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed in the mind.
For example, a human can, in their mind or with the aid of pen and paper, perform a method for calibrating a thermal drift, the method comprising: detecting, in response to a reference point on the at least one robot arms being moved to a preselected position, an actual position of the reference point; calculating a deviation value between the preselected position and the actual position; and calibrating, based on the deviation value, a planned position or a planned path that the at least one robot arms are intended to move to or move along, to derive a calibrated position or a calibrated path.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements italicized above. The a robot having at least one robot arms, an apparatus for calibrating a thermal drift of a robot having at least one robot arms, a detecting unit, a calculating unit, a calibrating unit, a robot system comprising a robot having at least one robot arms, and a processor is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely link(s) the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of a robot having at least one robot arms, an apparatus for calibrating a thermal drift of a robot having at least one robot arms, a detecting unit, a calculating unit, a calibrating unit, a robot system comprising a robot having at least one robot arms, and a processor is/are no more than mere generic linking of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim contains ineligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8 recite(s) limitations that are no more that the abstract idea recited in claim(s) 1. The claim(s) recite(s) defining positions and path in X and Y coordinates, defining a reference point location the preselected position, detecting the actual position, and adding the deviation value to the planned position or the planned path steps which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim(s) contain(s) ineligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 2, 12, 15 recite(s) limitations that are no more that the abstract idea recited in claim(s) 1. The claim(s) recite(s) a first robot arm, a second robot arm, is SCARA robot, a machine readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, a processor, and an apparatus at a high level of generality to generically link the use of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment. Thus, the claim(s) contain(s) ineligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 9 recite(s) limitations that are no more that the abstract idea recited in claim(s) 1. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving an order that instructs the robot steps which is/are mere data gathering, manipulation, and transmission, and is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, and thus is/are no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claim(s) contain(s) ineligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 11 recite(s) limitations that incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim(s) contain(s) eligible subject matter.
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) 1-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poelman et al. (US 2022/0147026 A1, “Poelman”).
Regarding claim 1: Poelman teaches: A method for calibrating a thermal drift of a robot having at least one robot arms, the method comprising: ([0023] Auto-calibration of a robotic cell used for manufacturing or assembly, controlled by computers. [0024] robotic arm, end of arm tools. [0025] Robot pose errors, mechanical hysteresis, backlash, thermal expansion, loading)
detecting, in response to a reference point on the at least one robot arms being moved to a preselected position, an actual position of the reference point; ([0029] robotic arm includes fiducials/patterns for calibration. positioned on each link, on the tool, near each joint. [0035] builds an accuracy map, localizing elements throughout the robotic cell, with metrics for accuracy. [0036] position (xyz) and orientation around the position. [0083] expectation of position and movement used to check the accuracy of the process. If any discrepancy is identified it is addressed. [0096] error represents the offset or discrepancy between a programmed pose and the actual pose of the robot arm. [0065] 3D volume of the workspace, real world positioning and movement of the robotic arm and relevant work pieces)
calculating a deviation value between the preselected position and the actual position; and ([0072] designs movement patterns for the robotic arm, calibrates the movement inaccuracies or discrepancies between the predicted positions in the movement pattern and the measured positions of the robotic arm. [0084] expected positions of the elements, compare those expectations to the observed reality from the cameras. [0088] compares the real world pose and movement pattern of the robotic arm, tool, and/or work piece to the expectation. [0099] Robotic pose error due to motion, load, deformation, temperature changes. When a robotic arm is sent to position X, Y, Z, the actual position that the robotic arm goes to will differ (X′, Y′, Z′). calculate the offset of the movement compared to the intended destination. used to adjust the instructions to the arm. [0111] arm consists of multiple jointed parts)
calibrating, based on the deviation value, a planned position or a planned path that the at least one robot arms are intended to move to or move along, to derive a calibrated position or a calibrated path ([0072] designs movement patterns for the robotic arm, calibrates the movement inaccuracies or discrepancies between the predicted positions in the movement pattern and the measured positions of the robotic arm. [0075] Task calibration. [0089] recalibrate, if appropriate. [0091] If there is a discrepancy between the observed movement and the predicted position, determines whether the difference can be resolved automatically. [0099] Robotic pose error due to motion, load, deformation, temperature changes. When a robotic arm is sent to position X, Y, Z, the actual position that the robotic arm goes to will differ (X′, Y′, Z′). calculate the offset of the movement compared to the intended destination. used to adjust the instructions to the arm. [0139] robot is instructed to move to position X, Y, Z, it will move to position X′, Y′, Z′, compensation adjusts the instruction so that when the system needs the robot to move to position X, Y, Z, it will instruct the robot to move to position X″, Y″, Z″, which will result in the robot moving to position X, Y, Z).
Regarding claim 2: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one robot arms comprise a first robot arm and a second robot arm, ([0059] robotic cells, each including a robotic arm. [0066] six axis robotic arm, multiple fiducials positioned within the workspace used to calibrate the system, and perform continuous feedback on calibration)
each configured to rotatably connected to one another via a rotation axis and to be rotatable in an XY plane perpendicular to the rotation axis ([0060] robot arm is a 6-axis arm and has a range of motion).
Regarding claim 3: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 2, wherein said preselected position, said actual position, said planned position and said planned path each are at least measured by X and Y coordinates defined in the XY plane ([0030] 3D space view. [0032] point of origin (0, 0, 0) frame of reference for the cell, to which all locations are referenced. [0036] position (xyz) and orientation around the position).
Regarding claim 4: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 2, wherein the reference point is located at an end of the second robot arm distant from a joint between the first robot arm and the second robot arm ([0029] robotic arm includes fiducials/patterns for calibration. positioned on each link, on the tool, near each joint).
Regarding claim 5: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the actual position of the reference point is performed by a detecting unit disposed at a distance from the at least one robot arms ([0128] cameras are mounted on top of the cell, overseeing the workspace. side camera is used to ensure a view of the tool tip).
Regarding claim 6: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein calibrating the planned position or the planned path comprises: adding the deviation value to the planned position or the planned path ([0099] Robotic pose error due to motion, load, deformation, temperature changes. When a robotic arm is sent to position X, Y, Z, the actual position that the robotic arm goes to will differ (X′, Y′, Z′). calculate the offset of the movement compared to the intended destination. used to adjust the instructions to the arm. [0139] robot is instructed to move to position X, Y, Z, it will move to position X′, Y′, Z′, adjusts the instruction so that when the system needs the robot to move to position X, Y, Z, it will instruct the robot to move to position X″, Y″, Z″, which will result in the robot moving to position X, Y, Z).
Regarding claim 7: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: rendering the at least one arms to move to the calibrated position or along the calibrated path ([0139] robot is instructed to move to position X, Y, Z, it will move to position X′, Y′, Z′, compensation adjusts the instruction so that when the system needs the robot to move to position X, Y, Z, it will instruct the robot to move to position X″, Y″, Z″, which will result in the robot moving to position X, Y, Z).
Regarding claim 8: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the preselected position is different from planned position or not comprised in the planned path ([0143] robot arm is moved around within the voxels, in a predefined pattern. [0144] model is built for each voxel).
Regarding claim 9: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving an order that instructs the at least one robot arms to move to the planned position or the planned path, and ([0139] robot is instructed to move to position X, Y, Z, it will move to position X′, Y′, Z′, compensation adjusts the instruction so that when the system needs the robot to move to position X, Y, Z, it will instruct the robot to move to position X″, Y″, Z″, which will result in the robot moving to position X, Y, Z)
the step of receiving the order is performed before or after the steps of detecting and calculating ([0145] desired destination coordinates, start coordinates, e.g., the current position of the robotic arm. [0146] solves for the correction values to be applied to the movement, based on the model. [0147] robot arm is moved to the corrected destination, to perform the action).
Regarding claim 10: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: in the case that the at least one robot arms have finished the task arranged at the calibrated position or along the calibrated path, mandating the at least one robot arms to move the reference point back to the preselected position ([0143] robot arm is moved around within the voxels, in a predefined pattern. [0144] model is built for each voxel. Fig. 4: step 460 ‘completed routine’, step 470 ‘utilize feedback look, recalibrate if appropriate’. Fig. 5: calibration is performed. relative poses are estimated. error is modeled. tool tip calibration is performed. robot pose error correction applied. monitored while in use. determines whether the calibration state is still sufficiently accurate. If so, any small corrections are made. If the calibration state is no longer sufficiently accurate, determines whether a complete recalibration is needed. If not, the process continues to perform robot pose error compensation calculations. Otherwise, the process returns to restart the full auto-calibration process).
Regarding claim 11: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising: in the case that at least one robot arms are instructed to move along one same planned path for multiple times, mandating the at least one robot arms to move the reference point back to the preselected position after the at least one robot arms have completed for a predetermined number of times for the calibrated path (Fig. 5: calibration is performed. relative poses are estimated. error is modeled. tool tip calibration is performed. robot pose error correction applied. monitored while in use. determines whether the calibration state is still sufficiently accurate. If so, any small corrections are made. If the calibration state is no longer sufficiently accurate, determines whether a complete recalibration is needed. If not, the process continues to perform robot pose error compensation calculations. Otherwise, the process returns to restart the full auto-calibration process).
Regarding claim 13: Poelman teaches: An apparatus for calibrating a thermal drift of a robot having at least one robot arms, the apparatus comprising: ([0023] Auto-calibration of a robotic cell used for manufacturing or assembly, controlled by computers. [0024] robotic arm, end of arm tools. [0025] Robot pose errors, mechanical hysteresis, backlash, thermal expansion, loading)
a detecting unit for detecting, in response to a reference point on the at least one robot arms being moved to a preselected position, an actual position of the reference point; ([0029] robotic arm includes fiducials/patterns for calibration. positioned on each link, on the tool, near each joint. [0035] builds an accuracy map, localizing elements throughout the robotic cell, with metrics for accuracy. [0036] position (xyz) and orientation around the position. [0083] expectation of position and movement used to check the accuracy of the process. If any discrepancy is identified it is addressed. [0096] error represents the offset or discrepancy between a programmed pose and the actual pose of the robot arm. [0065] 3D volume of the workspace, real world positioning and movement of the robotic arm and relevant work pieces)
a calculating unit for calculating a deviation value between the preselected position and the actual position; and ([0072] designs movement patterns for the robotic arm, calibrates the movement inaccuracies or discrepancies between the predicted positions in the movement pattern and the measured positions of the robotic arm. [0084] expected positions of the elements, compare those expectations to the observed reality from the cameras. [0088] compares the real world pose and movement pattern of the robotic arm, tool, and/or work piece to the expectation. [0099] Robotic pose error due to motion, load, deformation, temperature changes. When a robotic arm is sent to position X, Y, Z, the actual position that the robotic arm goes to will differ (X′, Y′, Z′). calculate the offset of the movement compared to the intended destination. used to adjust the instructions to the arm. [0111] arm consists of multiple jointed parts)
a calibrating unit for calibrating, based on the deviation value, a planned position or a planned path that the at least one robot arms are intended to move to or move along, to derive a calibrated position or a calibrated path ([0072] designs movement patterns for the robotic arm, calibrates the movement inaccuracies or discrepancies between the predicted positions in the movement pattern and the measured positions of the robotic arm. [0075] Task calibration. [0089] system may recalibrate, if appropriate. [0091] If there is a discrepancy between the observed movement and the predicted position, determines whether the difference can be resolved automatically. [0099] Robotic pose error due to motion, load, deformation, temperature changes. When a robotic arm is sent to position X, Y, Z, the actual position that the robotic arm goes to will differ (X′, Y′, Z′). calculate the offset of the movement compared to the intended destination. used to adjust the instructions to the arm. [0139] robot is instructed to move to position X, Y, Z, it will move to position X′, Y′, Z′, compensation adjusts the instruction so that when the system needs the robot to move to position X, Y, Z, it will instruct the robot to move to position X″, Y″, Z″, which will result in the robot moving to position X, Y, Z).
Regarding claim 14: Poelman teaches: A robot system comprising: ([0023] Auto-calibration of a robotic cell used for manufacturing or assembly, controlled by computers)
a robot having at least one robot arms; and ([0023] Auto-calibration of a robotic cell used for manufacturing or assembly, controlled by computers. [0024] robotic arm, end of arm tools. [0025] Robot pose errors, mechanical hysteresis, backlash, thermal expansion, loading)
a detecting unit for detecting, in response to a reference point on the at least one robot arms being moved to a preselected position, an actual position of the reference point; ([0029] robotic arm includes fiducials/patterns for calibration. positioned on each link, on the tool, near each joint. [0035] builds an accuracy map, localizing elements throughout the robotic cell, with metrics for accuracy. [0036] position (xyz) and orientation around the position. [0083] expectation of position and movement used to check the accuracy of the process. If any discrepancy is identified it is addressed. [0096] error represents the offset or discrepancy between a programmed pose and the actual pose of the robot arm. [0065] 3D volume of the workspace, real world positioning and movement of the robotic arm and relevant work pieces)
the robot comprises a processor configured to: calculate a deviation value between the preselected position and the actual position; and ([0072] designs movement patterns for the robotic arm, calibrates the movement inaccuracies or discrepancies between the predicted positions in the movement pattern and the measured positions of the robotic arm. [0084] expected positions of the elements, compare those expectations to the observed reality from the cameras. [0088] compares the real world pose and movement pattern of the robotic arm, tool, and/or work piece to the expectation. [0099] Robotic pose error due to motion, load, deformation, temperature changes. When a robotic arm is sent to position X, Y, Z, the actual position that the robotic arm goes to will differ (X′, Y′, Z′). calculate the offset of the movement compared to the intended destination. used to adjust the instructions to the arm. [0111] arm consists of multiple jointed parts)
calibrate, based on the deviation value, a planned position or a planned path that the at least one robot arms are intended to move to or move along, to derive a calibrated position or a calibrated path ([0072] designs movement patterns for the robotic arm, calibrates the movement inaccuracies or discrepancies between the predicted positions in the movement pattern and the measured positions of the robotic arm. [0075] Task calibration. [0089] system may recalibrate, if appropriate. [0091] If there is a discrepancy between the observed movement and the predicted position, determines whether the difference can be resolved automatically. [0099] Robotic pose error due to motion, load, deformation, temperature changes. When a robotic arm is sent to position X, Y, Z, the actual position that the robotic arm goes to will differ (X′, Y′, Z′). calculate the offset of the movement compared to the intended destination. used to adjust the instructions to the arm. [0139] robot is instructed to move to position X, Y, Z, it will move to position X′, Y′, Z′, compensation adjusts the instruction so that when the system needs the robot to move to position X, Y, Z, it will instruct the robot to move to position X″, Y″, Z″, which will result in the robot moving to position X, Y, Z).
Regarding claim 15: Poelman further teaches: A machine readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause an apparatus to implement the method of claim 1 ([0164] machine readable medium includes RAM, [0023] Auto-calibration of a robotic cell used for manufacturing or assembly, controlled by computers).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poelman et al. (US 2022/0147026 A1, “Poelman”) and further in view of Hosek et al. (US 2016/0136812 A1, “Hosek”).
Regarding claim 12: Poelman further teaches: The method of claim 1. However, Poelman does not explicitly teach: wherein the robot is SCARA robot.
Hosek teaches: wherein the robot is SCARA robot ([0090] FIG. 12, SCARA type robot).
Poelman and Hosek are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic controls and calibration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Poelman with the aspects of Hosek to create, with a reasonable expectation for success, a method for calibrating a thermal drift of a robot having at least one robot arms, wherein the robot is SCARA robot. The motivation for modification would have been to discern the magnitude of thermal distortions in various axes of the robot's geometry, where the updated geometry can then be used for the kinematics calculations and movement calibration, thus improving the accuracy of substrate placement (Hosek, [0095]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON B EMMETT whose telephone number is (303)297-4231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00 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, Tommy 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.
/MADISON B EMMETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3658