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 (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.
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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments, filed April 22nd, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) rejections of claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration of amended limitations, new rejections have been made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Dermet et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2025-529508A), herein “Dermet”, filed September 2023. Examiner notes the Applicant’s arguments and amendments fail to address each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action sent on February 5th, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 7 (along with claims 2-4, 6 and 8-10 due to dependency) are 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.
The terms “optimized” and “optimizes” in claims 1, 5 and 7 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “optimal”, “optimized” and “optimizes” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ames (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0053220 A1) in view of Dermet et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2025-529508A), herein “Dermet”, filed September 2023.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Ames discloses a method and system for controlling movement of a robot holding a tool from an end of one tool operation to a beginning of a next tool operation (See 0006, “[…] method of operation in a processor-based system to control motion of a robot […]” See also 0108, “[…] the robotic appendage 104 may be comprised a number of links 106 a, 106 b, 106 c (three shown, collectively 106), joints 108 a, 108 b, 108 c, 108 d (four shown, collectively 108), and optionally an end of arm tool or end effector 110.”), said method and system comprising:
separating the movement of the robot from the end of the one tool operation to the beginning of the next tool operation into a plurality of robot movement segments that have different robot movement accelerations, wherein one of the robot movement segments is a last robot movement segment just before the beginning of the next tool operation (See 0007, “[…] for each of a plurality of waypoints si from s1 to at least sn-1 along a geometric path, there being a corresponding robot configuration qi for each waypoint si, linearly determining an estimate of a maximized velocity along the path while applying an acceleration limit to movement represented by the transitions between adjacent ones of the waypoints […]” See also 0096, “[…] at a waypoint (the waypoint just proceeding the final waypoint sn), the acceleration (a) will be something between zero and a small negative number as the robot or portion thereof decelerates towards the final waypoint […]” Examiner notes the waypoints are segmented portions of the robot’s path and different accelerations are applied when transitioning between adjacent waypoints);
determining a desired acceleration of the robot for each robot movement segment that optimizes a cycle time of the robot movement in each robot movement segment, wherein the optimized cycle time is a predetermined maximum time (See 0003, “[…] to optimize velocity along a geometric path without violating any constraints. The constraints in this context include constraints on velocity, acceleration, and jerk […]” See also 0026-0027, “[…] determining a respective time at which the respective waypoint is to be reached based on respective ones of the determined estimates of maximized velocity, for each of the waypoints si from at least s2 to sn along the geometric path […] with respect to a respective time at which at least one preceding waypoint is to be reached […] the determined respective times […] to control motion of the robot.” See also 0094, “The optimization goal is to maximize an absolute value of velocity, or more conveniently velocity squared (x)) […]” Examiner notes the optimization goal includes velocity subject to acceleration limits, with determined time goals to achieve an optimal velocity for reaching each proceeding waypoint, which is the same as a cycle); and
reducing the desired acceleration of the robot during the last robot movement segment to a less than desired acceleration so as to reduce tool jerk when the robot reaches the beginning of the next tool operation (See 0096 as referenced above. See also 0013-0015, “[…] linearly determining an estimate of a maximized velocity along the path while applying a jerk limit to movement represented by the transitions between adjacent ones of the waypoints […] determining a respective range of feasible velocities and a respective range of feasible accelerations, each range bound by the jerk limit at each respective waypoint […] determining a respective range of feasible velocities and a range of feasible accelerations bound by the jerk limit at each respective waypoint”).
But does not explicitly disclose reducing the desired acceleration provides a cycle time for the last segment that is longer than the predetermined maximum time.
Dermet, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches reducing the desired acceleration provides a cycle time for the last segment that is longer than the predetermined maximum time (See 0040, “[…] obtain an overall acceleration that is equal in absolute value to the overall deceleration over the two stages, and therefore the speed is identical between the start and end times of the acceleration and deceleration stages […]” See also 0069, “[…] greater than the orientation of the maximum time profile for the orientation […]” See also 00150-00154, “[…] acceleration phase comprises an increase in the absolute value of acceleration at a predetermined jerk up to a maximum absolute value of acceleration over a first phase, and a decrease in the absolute value of acceleration at a predetermined jerk […] predetermined intervals […] may be obtained in several ways […]”).
In view of Dermet’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with method and system for controlling a robot holding a tool through various segments while determining and adjusting acceleration for reducing tool jerk as disclosed by Ames, a reduction in acceleration providing a cycle time longer than a predetermined amount, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both references are directed towards the control of robotic arms with compensation, and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed or taught in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, Ames further discloses the method according to claim 1 and system according to claim 7, wherein the last robot movement segment is a final deceleration section of the combined robot movement segments (See 0096, “[…] at a waypoint (the waypoint just proceeding the final waypoint sn), the acceleration (a) will be something between zero and a small negative number as the robot or portion thereof decelerates towards the final waypoint […]”).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ames (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0053220 A1) in view of Dermet et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2025-529508A) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Sladek et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2009/0037021 A1), herein “Sladek”.
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Ames in view of Dermet does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1 and system according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of robot movement segments is seven segments and the last robot movement segment is the seventh robot movement segment.
Sladek, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the plurality of robot movement segments is seven segments and the last robot movement segment is the seventh robot movement segment (See Fig. 1b below and 0035, “[…] a motion trajectory 200 that is comprised of seven independent moves: a first move 202, a second move 204, a third move 206, a fourth move 208, a fifth move 210, a sixth move 212, and a seventh move 214. The start point of the first move 202 is from zero velocity as is the end point of the seventh move 214. The seven independent moves in the trajectory 200 are executed serially wherein the second move starts once the first move is complete and so on.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
230
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of Sladek’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the sequence of transitions between waypoints for a robot’s path optimized for velocity and a reduction in jerk as disclosed by Ames in view of Dermet, the sequence or segments of movements to be divided into seven parts, with the seventh being the last part, with a reasonable expectation of success, since a sequence of transitions between waypoints inevitably leads to a final segment terminating at the final waypoint, and the method and system for optimizing waypoint transitions already has distinct acceleration and jerk characteristics for each segment, thus making the amount of segments a simple design choice.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ames (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0053220 A1) in view of Dermet et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2025-529508A), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hermann et al. (US Patent No. 6,822,187 B1), herein “Hermann”.
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Ames in view of Dermet does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1 and system according to claim 7, wherein the robot tool is a laser cutting tool.
Hermann, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the robot tool is a laser cutting tool (See Abstract, “A laser cutting or welding device, the device having a laser head (10) and a robot (35), wherein the laser head is attached to the robot (35).” See also Col. 3 Lines 48-50, “[…] the laser head is mounted to a robot or robotic arm, which together, function as a laser device that may operate upon a surface of a workpiece […]”).
In view of Hermann’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the sequence of transitions between waypoints for a robot’s path optimized for velocity and a reduction in jerk as disclosed by Ames in view of Dermet, the robot to have a laser cutting tool attached or mounted thereon, with a reasonable expectation of success, since motion planning and optimization are routinely applied to robot operating with various tools in manufacturing, and the use of robotic arms to position a laser cutting tool is well-established practice in industrial automation, so this combination is a natural and expected design choice.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ames (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0053220 A1) in view of Dermet et al. (JP Patent Pub. No. 2025-529508A), and further in view of Sladek et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2009/0037021 A1) and Hermann et al. (US Patent No. 6,822,187 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Ames discloses a method for controlling movement of a robot holding a tool from an end of one tool operation to a beginning of a next tool operation (See 0006 and 0108 as referenced above), said method comprising:
separating the movement of the robot from the end of the one tool operation to the beginning of the next tool operation into robot movement segments that have different robot movement accelerations (See 0007 and 0096 as referenced above);
determining a desired acceleration of the robot for each robot movement segment that optimizes a cycle time of the robot movement in each robot movement segment, wherein the optimized cycle time is a predetermined maximum time (See 0003, 0026-0027 and 0094 as referenced above); and
reducing the desired acceleration of the robot during the seventh robot movement segment to a less than desired acceleration so as to reduce tool jerk when the tool reaches the beginning of the next tool operation (See 0013-0015 and 0096 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose a laser cutting tool or seven robot movement segments; and
reducing the desired acceleration provides a cycle time for the last segment that is longer than the predetermined maximum time.
Sladek, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches seven robot movement segments (See Fig. 1b and 0035 as referenced and shown above).
Hermann, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a laser cutting tool (See Abstract and Col. 3 Lines 48-50 as referenced above).
Dermet, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches reducing the desired acceleration provides a cycle time for the last segment that is longer than the predetermined maximum time (See 0040, 0069 and 00150-00154 as referenced above”).
In view of Sladek, Hermann and Dermet’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the sequence of transitions between waypoints for a robot’s path optimized for velocity and a reduction in jerk as disclosed by Ames, the plurality of waypoints to be divided into seven segments and the robot tool to be a laser cutting tool, while reducing acceleration providing a cycle time longer than a predetermined amount, with a reasonable expectation of success, since both limitations are natural and expected engineering design choices because the method and system for optimizing waypoint transitions already has distinct acceleration and jerk characteristics for each segment and the use of robotic arms to position a laser cutting tool is well-established practice in industrial automation. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed or taught in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Ames further discloses the method according to claim 5 wherein the seventh robot movement segment is a final deceleration section of the combined robot movement segments (See 0096 as referenced above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights