DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/952,574, and is in response to the Amendments filed on 25 June 2025.
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-18, 41 and 45 remain pending in the application, while claims 19-40, 42-44 and 46 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 and 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 45:
In claim 1 it is recommended to amend the preamble from stating "the system including:" to "the system comprising:". In claim 41 it is recommended to amend "the method includes:" to state "the method comprises:"
Regarding claims 2-28:
"Claims 2-18 recite “A system according to…”. It is recommended to amend “A system according to…” to “The system according to…” in order to avoid any antecedent basis issues.".
Regarding claim 2:
"Claim 2 recites "the robot base coordinate system". There is no prior recitation of the robot base coordinate system, therefore the element lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, "the robot base coordinate system" will be read as "a robot base coordinate system".
Regarding claim 12:
"Claim 12 recites "the robot base and environment coordinate systems". There is no prior recitation of robot base and environment coordinate systems, therefore the elements lack antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, "the robot base and environment coordinate systems" will be read as ".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 45
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to transitory forms of signal transmission. The preamble of the claim recites "A computer program product including computer executable code" and the body of the claim does not provide tangible structure for the "computer program product including computer executable code". The broadest reasonable interpretation of the "computer program product including computer executable code" encompasses non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signals per se and therefore it is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not contain any additional features with physical or tangible form, therefore it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.03(I-II).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Regarding Claims 1-18, 41 and 45
Claims 1-18, 41 and 45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12175164 B2 (and '164 hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘164 include each and every feature of the claims in the instant application, plus additional details. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been more than capable of modifying the claim language of ‘164 to be the same as the claim language of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 1
'164 recites a system for performing interactions within a physical environment (see claim 1), the system including:
a) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (see claim 1);
b) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon (see claim 1);
c) a tracking system that measures a robot base position indicative of a position of the robot base relative to the environment (see claim 1); and,
d) a control system (see claim 1) that:
i) acquires an indication of an end effector destination (see claim 1);
ii) determines a reference robot base position (see claim 1);
iii) calculates an end effector path extending to the end effector destination at least in part using the reference robot base position (see claim 1);
iv) determines a current robot base position using signals from the tracking system (see claim 1);
v) calculates a correction based on the current robot base position, the correction being indicative of a path modification (see claim 1);
vi) generates robot control signals based on the end effector path and the correction (see claim 1);
vii) applies the robot control signals to the robot arm to cause the end effector to be moved in accordance with the end effector path and the path modification towards the destination (see claim 1); and,
viii) repeats steps (iv) to (vii) to move the end effector towards the end effector destination (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 2
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the end effector destination is defined relative to an environment coordinate system and the control system:
a) calculates a transformed end effector destination by transforming the end effector destination from the environment coordinate system to a robot base coordinate system at least in part using the reference robot base position (see claim 2); and,
b) calculates an end effector path extending to the transformed end effector destination in the robot base coordinate system (see claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the control system:
a) determines an end effector position (see claim 3); and,
b) calculates the end effector path using the end effector position (see claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 3 (as discussed above in claim 3),
wherein the control system determines the end effector position in a robot base coordinate system using robot arm kinematics (see claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the control system:
a) calculates a robot base deviation based on the robot base position and an expected robot base position (see claim 5); and,
b) calculates the correction based on the robot base deviation (see claim 5).
Regarding Claim 6
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 5 (as discussed above in claim 5),
wherein the expected robot base position is based on at least one of:
a) an initial robot base position (see claim 6);
b) the reference robot base position (see claim 6); and,
c) a robot base path extending to the robot base reference position (see claim 6).
Regarding Claim 7
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the reference robot base position is at least one of:
a) a current robot base position (see claim 1);
b) a predicted robot base position based on movement of the robot base from a current robot base position (see claim 1);
c) a predicted robot base position based on movement of the robot base along a robot base path (see claim 1); and,
d) an intended robot base position when end effector reaches the end effector destination (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 8
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the correction takes into account at least one of:
a) unintentional movement (see claim 1); and,
b) intentional movement (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the correction is a vector indicative of movement in each of six degrees of freedom (see claim 7).
Regarding Claim 10
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the control system scales the correction based on a relative distance of the current end effector position from the end effector destination (see claim 8).
Regarding Claim 11
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 10 (as discussed above in claim 10),
wherein the control system scales the correction using an S curve to progressively apply the correction (see claim 9).
Regarding Claim 12
* teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the control system moves the end effector between first and second end effector destinations defined in a robot base and environment coordinate systems respectively, and wherein the control system scales the correction based on a relative distance of the current end effector position from the first and second end effector destinations (see claim 10).
Regarding Claim 13
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 12 (as discussed above in claim 12),
wherein:
a) no correction is applied when the current end effector position is proximate the first end effector destination (see claim 11); and,
b) full correction is applied when the current end effector position is proximate the second end effector destination (see claim 11).
Regarding Claim 14
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the end effector destination includes an end effector pose, the tracking system measures a robot base pose and wherein the control system:
a) determines a current robot base pose using signals from the tracking system (see claim 12); and,
b) calculates a correction based on the current robot base pose (see claim 12).
Regarding Claim 15
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 14 (as discussed above in claim 14),
wherein the control system:
a) determines an end effector pose relative (see claim 13); and,
b) calculates the end effector path using the end effector pose at least in part using a reference robot base pose (see claim 13).
Regarding Claim 16
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein for an end effector path having a zero path length, the path modification returns the end effector to the end effector destination to thereby maintain the end effector static within an environment coordinate system (see claim 14).
Regarding Claim 17
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein for an end effector path having a non-zero path length, the path modification returns the end effector to the end effector path (see claim 15).
Regarding Claim 18
'164 recites [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the robot base moves with a slower dynamic response and the end effector moves with a faster dynamic response to correct for movement of the robot base away from an expected robot base position (see claim 16).
Regarding Claim 41
'164 recites a method for performing interactions within a physical environment using a system (see claim 17) including:
a) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (see claim 17);
b) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon (see claim 17); and,
c) a tracking system that measures a robot base position indicative of a position of the robot base relative to the environment, and wherein the method includes (see claim 17), in a control system:
i) acquiring an indication of an end effector destination (see claim 17);
ii) determining a reference robot base position (see claim 17);
iii) calculating an end effector path extending to the end effector destination at least in part using the reference robot base position (see claim 17);
iv) determining a current robot base position using signals from the tracking system (see claim 17);
v) calculating a correction based on the current robot base position, the correction being indicative of a path modification (see claim 17);
vi) generating robot control signals based on the end effector path and the correction (see claim 17);
vii) applying the robot control signals to the robot arm to cause the end effector to be moved in accordance with the end effector path and the path modification towards the destination (see claim 17); and,
viii) repeating steps (iv) to (vii) until the end effector destination is reached (see claim 17).
Regarding Claim 45
'164 recites a computer program product including computer executable code, which when executed by a suitably programmed control system causes the control system to control a system for performing interactions within a physical environment (see claim 18), the system including:
a) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (see claim 18);
b) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon (see claim 18); and,
c) a tracking system that measures a robot base position indicative of a position of the robot base relative to the environment (see claim 18) and wherein the control system:
i) acquires an indication of an end effector destination (see claim 18);
ii) determines a reference robot base position (see claim 18);
iii) calculates an end effector path extending to the end effector destination at least in part using the reference robot base position (see claim 18);
iv) determines a current robot base position using signals from the tracking system (see claim 18);
v) calculates a correction based on the current robot base position, the correction being indicative of a path modification (see claim 18);
vi) generates robot control signals based on the end effector path and the correction (see claim 18);
vii) applies the robot control signals to the robot arm to cause the end effector to be moved in accordance with the end effector path and the path modification towards the destination (see claim 18); and,
viii) repeats steps (iv) to (vii) to move the end effector towards the end effector destination (see claim 18).
Claims 1-18, 41 and 45 are additionally provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18, 41 and 43 of copending Application No. US 20250371206 A1 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for at least the same reasons as discussed above with respect to ‘164.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 17, 41 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Troy et al. (US 20160239013 A1 and Troy hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1
Troy teaches a system for performing interactions within a physical environment (see all Figs.; [0001] and [0012]), the system including:
a) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (see robot base 8 in all Figs.; [0012] and [0037 "The robot 10 comprises a robot base 8 that is translatable along a track 14..."]);
b) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon (see robot 10 and end effector 12 in all Figs.; and [0037 "The robot 10 comprises a robot base 8 that is translatable along a track 14 and an end effector 12 attached to a distal end of the articulated arm of the robot."]);
c) a tracking system that measures a robot base position indicative of a position of the robot base relative to the environment (see LPS 20 in all Figs.; [0012] and [0039 "As shown in FIG. 1, the LPS 20 in accordance with one embodiment comprises a video camera 40 and a laser range meter (not shown) on a controllable pan-tilt mechanism 42 mounted on a tripod 44."]-[0040 "The LPS 20 seen in FIG. 1 can be used to determine the offset of the half-barrel fuselage section 2 relative to the robot base 8."]); and,
d) a control system (see LPS computer 48 and robot controller 80 in all Figs.; [0012] and [0039]-[0040 "The robot controller 80 controls the robot 10, the location of the robot base 8 along the track 14, and the location of the end effector 12 in a workcell frame of reference."]) that:
i) acquires an indication of an end effector destination (see [0012, all, especially "...creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path…"], [0053] and [0095]-[0096]);
ii) determines a reference robot base position (see [0012(c)-(d) "...(c) using the positioning system to separately measure respective positions of the target markers on the first workpiece and the target markers on the robot base; (d) calculating a first offset of the first workpiece at the first location relative to the robot base at the second location based on position information acquired in process (c)..."], [0041], [0048]-[0052], [0069] and [0096]);
iii) calculates an end effector path extending to the end effector destination at least in part using the reference robot base position (see [0012(e) "...(e) creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path, the motion plan program being based at least in part on the first offset..."], [0053] and [0095]-[0096]);
iv) determines a current robot base position using signals from the tracking system (see [0012(k)-(l), "...(k) using the positioning system to separately measure respective positions of a plurality of target markers on the second workpiece and the plurality of target markers on the robot base; (l) calculating a second offset of the second workpiece at the fourth location relative to the robot base at the fifth location based on position information acquired in process (k)..."], [0057 "(12) The robot base 8 is then returned to its approximate starting position and a second half-barrel fuselage section 2 is moved into the workcell and generally located within the range of the robot's reach."]-[0060], [0070] and [0096 "After robot base 84 and part 90 have moved to new locations, again LPS is used to determine the X, Y, Z values for measured points 92 a-92 c and 94 a-94 c."]);
v) calculates a correction based on the current robot base position, the correction being indicative of a path modification (see [0012(m) "...(m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets..."] and [0061]-[0062]);
vi) generates robot control signals based on the end effector path and the correction (see [0012(n) "...(n) controlling the robot so that the end effector moves along the second motion path while the second workpiece is situated at the fourth location and performs an automated function on the second workpiece while the end effector is at a specified location along the second motion path."] and [0062]);
vii) applies the robot control signals to the robot arm to cause the end effector to be moved in accordance with the end effector path and the path modification towards the destination (see [0012(n) "...(n) controlling the robot so that the end effector moves along the second motion path while the second workpiece is situated at the fourth location and performs an automated function on the second workpiece while the end effector is at a specified location along the second motion path.."] and [0062]); and,
viii) repeats steps (iv) to (vii) to move the end effector towards the end effector destination (see [0012], [0041 "This methodology can be used at the start of each work sequence to establish the relative locations of the robot base 8 and the particular half-barrel fuselage section 2 to be inspected."], [0044], [0057] and [0097]; The process of establishing location offset between the robot base and the workpiece occurs at the start of each work sequence for each new workpiece, therefore the steps are repeated for every workpiece that is being operated on after the robot base moves back to its approximate starting position.).
Regarding Claim 3
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the control system:
a) determines an end effector position (see [0012(e) "...(e) creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path, the motion plan program being based at least in part on the first offset…"], [0079] and [0095]-[0097]); and,
b) calculates the end effector path using the end effector position (see [0012(e) "...(e) creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path, the motion plan program being based at least in part on the first offset…"], [0079] and [0095]-[0096]).
Regarding Claim 5
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the control system:
a) calculates a robot base deviation based on the robot base position and an expected robot base position (see [0012(l)-(m) "...(l) calculating a second offset of the second workpiece at the fourth location relative to the robot base at the fifth location based on position information acquired in process (k); (m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets..."] and [0062]); and,
b) calculates the correction based on the robot base deviation (see [0012(m) "...(m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets…"] and [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 6
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 5 (as discussed above in claim 5),
wherein the expected robot base position is based on at least one of:
a) an initial robot base position (see [0012(d) "...(d) calculating a first offset of the first workpiece at the first location relative to the robot base at the second location based on position information acquired in process (c)..."], [0048 "(3) The robot base 8 is then moved to a starting location within the inspection space (i.e., referred to herein as a “workcell”)."]-[0052], [0069] and [0096]); and
b) the reference robot base position (see [0012(d) "...(d) calculating a first offset of the first workpiece at the first location relative to the robot base at the second location based on position information acquired in process (c)..."], [0048 "(3) The robot base 8 is then moved to a starting location within the inspection space (i.e., referred to herein as a “workcell”)."]-[0052], [0069] and [0096]).
Regarding Claim 7
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the reference robot base position is:
a) a current robot base position (see [0012(d) or (l) "...(d) calculating a first offset of the first workpiece at the first location relative to the robot base at the second location based on position information acquired in process (c) ... (l) calculating a second offset of the second workpiece at the fourth location relative to the robot base at the fifth location based on position information acquired in process (k)...], [0048]-[0052], [0057]-[0060], [0069]-[0070] and [0096]).
Regarding Claim 8
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the correction takes into account:
b) intentional movement (see [0012(m)], [0044], [0048], [0053 "This motion plan will control the position of the robot base 8"…"], [0057 "The robot base 8 is then returned to its approximate starting position…"], [0061], [0070 "...which allows one to consider the coordinate system {R} when the robot base 8 is at the initial location and the coordinate system {R}′ when the robot base 8 is at the subsequent location..."] and [0096 "After robot base 84 and part 90 have moved to new locations, again LPS is used to determine the X, Y, Z values for measured points 92 a-92 c and 94 a-94 c. "]).
Regarding Claim 10
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the control system scales the correction based on a relative distance of the current end effector position from the end effector destination (see [0012(l)-(m) "...(l) calculating a second offset of the second workpiece at the fourth location relative to the robot base at the fifth location based on position information acquired in process (k); (m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets…"] and [0060]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 17
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein for an end effector path having a non-zero path length, the path modification returns the end effector to the end effector path (see [0012(m) "...(m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets…"] and [0061]).
Regarding Claim 41
Troy teaches a method for performing interactions within a physical environment using a system (see all Figs.; [0001] and [0012]) including:
a) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (see robot base 8 in all Figs.; [0012] and [0037 "The robot 10 comprises a robot base 8 that is translatable along a track 14..."]);
b) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon (see robot 10 and end effector 12 in all Figs.; and [0037 "The robot 10 comprises a robot base 8 that is translatable along a track 14 and an end effector 12 attached to a distal end of the articulated arm of the robot."]); and,
c) a tracking system that measures a robot base position indicative of a position of the robot base relative to the environment (see LPS 20 in all Figs.; [0012] and [0039 "As shown in FIG. 1, the LPS 20 in accordance with one embodiment comprises a video camera 40 and a laser range meter (not shown) on a controllable pan-tilt mechanism 42 mounted on a tripod 44."]-[0040 "The LPS 20 seen in FIG. 1 can be used to determine the offset of the half-barrel fuselage section 2 relative to the robot base 8."]), and wherein the method includes, in a control system:
i) acquiring an indication of an end effector destination (see [0012, all, especially "...creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path…"], [0053] and [0095]-[0096]);
ii) determining a reference robot base position (see [0012(c)-(d) "...(c) using the positioning system to separately measure respective positions of the target markers on the first workpiece and the target markers on the robot base; (d) calculating a first offset of the first workpiece at the first location relative to the robot base at the second location based on position information acquired in process (c)..."], [0041], [0048]-[0052], [0069] and [0096]);
iii) calculating an end effector path extending to the end effector destination at least in part using the reference robot base position (see [0012(e) "...(e) creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path, the motion plan program being based at least in part on the first offset..."], [0053] and [0095]-[0096]);
iv) determining a current robot base position using signals from the tracking system (see [0012(k)-(l), "...(k) using the positioning system to separately measure respective positions of a plurality of target markers on the second workpiece and the plurality of target markers on the robot base; (l) calculating a second offset of the second workpiece at the fourth location relative to the robot base at the fifth location based on position information acquired in process (k)..."], [0057 "(12) The robot base 8 is then returned to its approximate starting position and a second half-barrel fuselage section 2 is moved into the workcell and generally located within the range of the robot's reach."]-[0060], [0070] and [0096 "After robot base 84 and part 90 have moved to new locations, again LPS is used to determine the X, Y, Z values for measured points 92 a-92 c and 94 a-94 c."]);
v) calculating a correction based on the current robot base position, the correction being indicative of a path modification (see [0012(m) "...(m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets..."] and [0061]-[0062]);
vi) generating robot control signals based on the end effector path and the correction (see [0012(n) "...(n) controlling the robot so that the end effector moves along the second motion path while the second workpiece is situated at the fourth location and performs an automated function on the second workpiece while the end effector is at a specified location along the second motion path."] and [0062]);
vii) applying the robot control signals to the robot arm to cause the end effector to be moved in accordance with the end effector path and the path modification towards the destination (see [0012(n) "...(n) controlling the robot so that the end effector moves along the second motion path while the second workpiece is situated at the fourth location and performs an automated function on the second workpiece while the end effector is at a specified location along the second motion path.."] and [0062]); and,
viii) repeating steps (iv) to (vii) until the end effector destination is reached (see [0012], [0041 "This methodology can be used at the start of each work sequence to establish the relative locations of the robot base 8 and the particular half-barrel fuselage section 2 to be inspected."], [0044], [0057] and [0097]; The process of establishing location offset between the robot base and the workpiece occurs at the start of each work sequence for each new workpiece, therefore the steps are repeated for every workpiece that is being operated on after the robot base moves back to its approximate starting position.).
Regarding Claim 45
Troy teaches a computer program product including computer executable code, which when executed by a suitably programmed control system causes the control system to control a system for performing interactions within a physical environment (see all Figs.; [0001] and [0012]), the system including:
a) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (see robot base 8 in all Figs.; [0012] and [0037 "The robot 10 comprises a robot base 8 that is translatable along a track 14..."]);
b) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon (see robot 10 and end effector 12 in all Figs.; and [0037 "The robot 10 comprises a robot base 8 that is translatable along a track 14 and an end effector 12 attached to a distal end of the articulated arm of the robot."]); and,
c) a tracking system that measures a robot base position indicative of a position of the robot base relative to the environment (see LPS 20 in all Figs.; [0012] and [0039 "As shown in FIG. 1, the LPS 20 in accordance with one embodiment comprises a video camera 40 and a laser range meter (not shown) on a controllable pan-tilt mechanism 42 mounted on a tripod 44."]-[0040 "The LPS 20 seen in FIG. 1 can be used to determine the offset of the half-barrel fuselage section 2 relative to the robot base 8."]) and wherein the control system:
i) acquires an indication of an end effector destination (see [0012, all, especially "...creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path…"], [0053] and [0095]-[0096]);
ii) determines a reference robot base position (see [0012(c)-(d) "...(c) using the positioning system to separately measure respective positions of the target markers on the first workpiece and the target markers on the robot base; (d) calculating a first offset of the first workpiece at the first location relative to the robot base at the second location based on position information acquired in process (c)..."], [0041], [0048]-[0052], [0069] and [0096]);
iii) calculates an end effector path extending to the end effector destination at least in part using the reference robot base position (see [0012(e) "...(e) creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path, the motion plan program being based at least in part on the first offset..."], [0053] and [0095]-[0096]);
iv) determines a current robot base position using signals from the tracking system (see [0012(k)-(l), "...(k) using the positioning system to separately measure respective positions of a plurality of target markers on the second workpiece and the plurality of target markers on the robot base; (l) calculating a second offset of the second workpiece at the fourth location relative to the robot base at the fifth location based on position information acquired in process (k)..."], [0057 "(12) The robot base 8 is then returned to its approximate starting position and a second half-barrel fuselage section 2 is moved into the workcell and generally located within the range of the robot's reach."]-[0060], [0070] and [0096 "After robot base 84 and part 90 have moved to new locations, again LPS is used to determine the X, Y, Z values for measured points 92 a-92 c and 94 a-94 c."]);
v) calculates a correction based on the current robot base position, the correction being indicative of a path modification (see [0012(m) "...(m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets..."] and [0061]-[0062]);
vi) generates robot control signals based on the end effector path and the correction (see [0012(n) "...(n) controlling the robot so that the end effector moves along the second motion path while the second workpiece is situated at the fourth location and performs an automated function on the second workpiece while the end effector is at a specified location along the second motion path."] and [0062]);
vii) applies the robot control signals to the robot arm to cause the end effector to be moved in accordance with the end effector path and the path modification towards the destination (see [0012(n) "...(n) controlling the robot so that the end effector moves along the second motion path while the second workpiece is situated at the fourth location and performs an automated function on the second workpiece while the end effector is at a specified location along the second motion path..."] and [0062]); and,
viii) repeats steps (iv) to (vii) to move the end effector towards the end effector destination (see [0012], [0041 "This methodology can be used at the start of each work sequence to establish the relative locations of the robot base 8 and the particular half-barrel fuselage section 2 to be inspected."], [0044], [0057] and [0097]; The process of establishing location offset between the robot base and the workpiece occurs at the start of each work sequence for each new workpiece, therefore the steps are repeated for every workpiece that is being operated on after the robot base moves back to its approximate starting position.).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy as applied to claim 1, 3 and 10 above, and further in view of Kawamura et al. (US 20150158181 A1 and Kawamura hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 2
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
b) calculates an end effector path extending to the end effector destination in the robot base coordinate system (see [0012(e) "...(e) creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path, the motion plan program being based at least in part on the first offset…"], [0053] and [0095]-[0096]).
Troy is silent regarding wherein the end effector destination is defined relative to an environment coordinate system and the control system:
a) calculates a transformed end effector destination by transforming the end effector destination from the environment coordinate system to a robot base coordinate system at least in part using the reference robot base position; and,
b) calculates an end effector path extending to the transformed end effector destination in the robot base coordinate system.
Kawamura teaches a system for performing interactions within a physical environment (see all Figs; [0001] and [0011]), the system including:
a) a robot base (see Fig. 1, Q1; [0060]);
b) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon (see Fig. 1, links L1-L3; [0060]-[0061]);
c) a tracking system that measures a robot base position indicative of a position of the robot base relative to the environment (see Fig. 1, cameras/imager C1 and C2; [0011] and [0062]-[0064]); and,
d) a control system (see Fig. 2, controller 5; [0068]) that:
i) acquires an indication of an end effector destination (see [0001], [0011] and [0016 "Thus, the reference position can be brought closer to the destination by displacing the joint by the second application amount based on the displacement amount deviation, as a result the end effector can be moved toward the target position."]);
wherein the end effector destination is defined relative to an environment coordinate system (see Figs. 1 and 4, "coordinate systems of the cameras"; [0066], [0073 "In the external loop Lx, the position p of the end effector 4 is detected by two cameras C1, C2. In other words, the position p of the end effector 4 in the task coordinate system is transformed into coordinates α1, α2 of the coordinate systems of the respective cameras C1, C2 by coordinate transform 203."] and [0097 "As just described, a positional deviation detection amount (=Φ(p)(pd−p)) corresponding to the positional deviation (pd−p) expressed in the task coordinate system can be obtained from the positional deviations (β1-α1), (β2-α2) expressed in the respective coordinate systems of the two cameras C1, C2. Accordingly, in the external loop Lx, values obtained by applying operations 204, 205 respectively to the positional deviations (β1-α1), (β2-α2) in the coordinate systems of the cameras C1, C2 are added to calculate the positional deviation detection amount (=Φ(p)(pd−p)) in the task coordinate system as shown in FIG. 3."]) and the control system:
a) calculates a transformed end effector destination by transforming the end effector destination from the environment coordinate system to a robot base coordinate system at least in part using the reference robot base position (see [0097 "As just described, a positional deviation detection amount (=Φ(p)(pd−p)) corresponding to the positional deviation (pd−p) expressed in the task coordinate system can be obtained from the positional deviations (β1-α1), (β2-α2) expressed in the respective coordinate systems of the two cameras C1, C2. Accordingly, in the external loop Lx, values obtained by applying operations 204, 205 respectively to the positional deviations (β1-α1), (β2-α2) in the coordinate systems of the cameras C1, C2 are added to calculate the positional deviation detection amount (=Φ(p)(pd−p)) in the task coordinate system as shown in FIG. 3."], [0234] and [0255]); and,
b) calculates an end effector path extending to the transformed end effector destination in the robot base coordinate system (see [0065 "As shown in FIG. 1, the three-dimensional task coordinate system configured by X, Y and Z axes perpendicular to each other with the Z axis as a vertical axis is defined for a task space where the end effector 4 operates. Thus, the position p of the end effector 4 is given by a three-dimensional vector (px, py, pz). Similarly, the target position pd of the end effector 4 is also given by a three-dimensional vector (pdx, pdy, pdz)."], [0097]-[0098] and [0239]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Troy to further include an environment coordinate system to define the end effector destination and instructions to calculate a transformed end effector destination by transforming the end effector destination from the environment coordinate system to the robot base coordinate system at least in part using the reference robot base position, as taught by Kawamura, in order to detect deviations in the manipulator’s positions and transform information from the environmental coordinate system to the robot base coordinate system for controlling the robot.
Regarding Claim 4
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 3 (as discussed above in claim 3),
Troy is silent regarding wherein the control system determines the end effector position in a robot base coordinate system using robot arm kinematics.
Kawamura teaches wherein the control system determines the end effector position in a robot base coordinate system using robot arm kinematics (see [0023], [0035] and [0072 "As a result, the end effector 4 moves to the position p corresponding to the rotation angles q in accordance with robot kinematics 202."]-[0073 "In the external loop Lx, the position p of the end effector 4 is detected by two cameras C1, C2. In other words, the position p of the end effector 4 in the task coordinate system is transformed into coordinates α1, α2 of the coordinate systems of the respective cameras C1, C2 by coordinate transform 203.”]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Troy to further instruct the control system to determine the end effector position in a robot base coordinate system using robot arm kinematics, as taught by Kawamura, in order to calculate required joint rotation angles to achieve a desired end effector destination.
Regarding Claim 9
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the correction is a vector (see Figs. 5-7, all; [0023]-[0025] and [0085]).
Troy is silent regarding wherein the correction is a vector indicative of movement in each of six degrees of freedom.
Kawamura teaches wherein the correction is a vector indicative of movement in each of six degrees of freedom (see [0024 "The robot control apparatus, controlling the robot in which the end effector is attached to one end of an arm having six or more degrees of freedom by coupling the joints…"], [0031]-[0033] and [0125]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Troy to enable the robot to move in six degrees of freedom, as taught by Kawamura, in order to accurately position the end effector in six dimensions.
Regarding Claim 11
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 10 (as discussed above in claim 10),
Troy is silent regarding wherein the control system scales the correction using an S curve to progressively apply the correction.
Kawamura teaches wherein the control system scales the correction using an S curve to progressively apply the correction (see Fig. 6, all; [0235]-[0236]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Troy to further instruct the control system to scale the correction using an S curve to progressively apply the correction, as taught by Kawamura, in order to execute feedback control in the shape of an S curve to bring the end effector to the end effector destination.
Regarding Claim 16
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Troy is silent regarding wherein for an end effector path having a zero path length, the path modification returns the end effector to the end effector destination to thereby maintain the end effector static within an environment coordinate system.
Kawamura teaches wherein for an end effector path having a zero path length, the path modification returns the end effector to the end effector destination to thereby maintain the end effector static within an environment coordinate system (see Fig. 6; [0101], [0132], [0150], [0248]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Troy to further instruct the control system to return the end effector to the end effector destination to maintain the end effector static within an environment coordinate system when an end effector path has a zero path length, as taught by Kawamura, in order to quickly return the end effector to the end effector destination with high precision.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lilienthal et al. (EP 1375083 A2 and Lilienthal hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 12
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the control system moves the end effector between first and second end effector destinations (see [0012(e)], [0012(m)], [0053], [0061]-[0062] and [0095]-[0096]), and wherein the control system scales the correction based on a relative distance of the current end effector position from the first and second end effector destinations (see [0012(m)] and [0060]-[0062]).
Troy is silent regarding moves the end effector between first and second end effector destinations defined in a robot base and environment coordinate systems respectively.
Lilienthal teaches a system for performing interactions within a physical environment (see Figs. 1-4; [0001]; see corresponding paragraphs in the attached reference EP_1375083_A2), the system including:
a) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (see Figs. 1-4, U1 and U2);
b) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon (see Figs. 1-4, robot arm 3);
c) a tracking system that measures a robot base position indicative of a position of the robot base relative to the environment (see "coordinate measuring device", [0009]); and,
d) a control system (see [0050]) that:
i) acquires an indication of an end effector destination (see [0009] and [0053]);
wherein the control system moves the end effector between first and second end effector destinations defined in a robot base and environment coordinate systems respectively, and wherein the control system scales the correction based on a relative distance of the current end effector position from the first and second end effector destinations (see Fig. 1, all [0053]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Troy to further instruct the control system to move the end effector between first and second end effector destinations defined in robot base and environment coordinate systems respectively, as taught by Lilienthal, in order to determine the relative position and orientation of the robot base coordinate system with respect to the environment coordinate system.
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 12 (as discussed above in claim 12),
Troy further teaches wherein:
a) no correction is applied when the current end effector position is proximate the first end effector destination (see [0012(e) "...(e) creating a motion plan program for moving an end effector of the robot along a first motion path, the motion plan program being based at least in part on the first offset…"], [0053] and [0095]-[0096]); and,
b) full correction is applied when the current end effector position is proximate the second end effector destination (see [0012(m) "...(m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets…"] and [0061]-[0062]).
Claims 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20180001479 A1 and Li hereinafter).
Regarding Claims 14-15
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
wherein the end effector destination includes an end effector position, the tracking system measures a robot base pose (see [0012(m) "...(m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets..."] and [0061]-[0062]) and wherein the control system:
a) determines a current robot base pose using signals from the tracking system (see [0012(k)-(l)], [0057]-[0060], [0070] and [0096]); and,
b) calculates a correction based on the current robot base position (see [0012(m)] and [0061]-[0062]);
wherein the control system:
b) calculates the end effector path using the end effector pose at least in part using a reference robot base pose (see [0012(m) "...(m) modifying the motion plan program for moving the end effector of the robot along a second motion path different than the first motion path based at least in part on a difference between the first and second offsets…"] and [0061]-[0062]).
Troy is silent regarding wherein the end effector destination includes an end effector pose,
wherein the control system:
a) determines an end effector pose relative.
Li teaches a system for performing interactions within a physical environment (see all Figs.; [0002] and [0007]-[0011]), the system including:
a) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (see Figs. 2-6, mobile base 202/302; [0062] and [0077]);
b) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon (see Figs. 2-6, manipulator 204/304 and end effector 206/306; [0062] and [0077]);
c) a tracking system that measures a robot base position indicative of a position of the robot base relative to the environment (see Fig. 2, surface detection module 210 and tracking error determination module 214; [0062]); and,
d) a control system (see Fig. 2, controller 208; [0062]) that:
i) acquires an indication of an end effector destination (see [0009 "determining a reference path for the end effector to track based on an offset from the surface detected"] and [0030]-[0034]);
wherein the end effector destination includes an end effector pose (see Fig. 3, [0021 "In various embodiments, said detecting the surface further comprises detecting orientations of the surface at points along the surface, and wherein the tracking error further comprises an orientation error, and said determining a tracking error further comprises determining the orientation error based on the surface detected and an orientation of the mobile manipulator obtained."], [0079]-[0082] and [0094 "The trajectory following controller 502 controls the movement of the mobile base 302 based on the current reference trajectory (including position and orientation) determined and the current position and orientation of the mobile base 302 obtained (fed back from the mobile base 302)."]), the tracking system measures a robot base pose and wherein the control system:
a) determines a current robot base pose using signals from the tracking system (see [0094 "The trajectory following controller 502 controls the movement of the mobile base 302 based on the current reference trajectory (including position and orientation) determined and the current position and orientation of the mobile base 302 obtained (fed back from the mobile base 302)."]); and,
b) calculates a correction based on the current robot base pose (see [0094 "The trajectory following controller 502 controls the movement of the mobile base 302 based on the current reference trajectory (including position and orientation) determined and the current position and orientation of the mobile base 302 obtained (fed back from the mobile base 302)."]);
wherein the control system:
a) determines an end effector pose relative (see Fig. 3, [0021 "In various embodiments, said detecting the surface further comprises detecting orientations of the surface at points along the surface, and wherein the tracking error further comprises an orientation error, and said determining a tracking error further comprises determining the orientation error based on the surface detected and an orientation of the mobile manipulator obtained."] and [0094 "The position tracking controller 512 controls the movement of the robot arm 304 based on the position in the current reference trajectory determined and the current relative position of the robot arm 304 (i.e., position relative to the mobile base 302)."]); and,
b) calculates the end effector path using the end effector pose at least in part using a reference robot base pose (see Fig. 3, [0021 "In various embodiments, said detecting the surface further comprises detecting orientations of the surface at points along the surface, and wherein the tracking error further comprises an orientation error, and said determining a tracking error further comprises determining the orientation error based on the surface detected and an orientation of the mobile manipulator obtained."] and [0094 "The trajectory following controller 502 controls the movement of the mobile base 302 based on the current reference trajectory (including position and orientation) determined and the current position and orientation of the mobile base 302 obtained (fed back from the mobile base 302). The position tracking controller 512 controls the movement of the robot arm 304 based on the position in the current reference trajectory determined and the current relative position of the robot arm 304 (i.e., position relative to the mobile base 302)."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Troy to further instruct the control system to include an end effector pose in the end effector destination, as taught by Li, in order to follow a path parallel to a surface at a specified distance.
Regarding Claim 18
Troy teaches [[A]] The system according to claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Troy is silent regarding wherein the robot base moves with a slower dynamic response and the end effector moves with a faster dynamic response to correct for movement of the robot base away from an expected robot base position.
Li teaches wherein the robot base moves with a slower dynamic response and the end effector moves with a faster dynamic response to correct for movement of the robot base away from an expected robot base position (see [0096 "Such a mobile base 302 may have a slower response with possibly separate sensing mechanism that has longer range but lower precision. The manipulator (mini manipulator) 304 is configured to be able to adjust the end-effector 306 in a lateral direction of the mobile manipulator 300 so as to compensate position error of the end-effector 306. Such a mini manipulator has faster response, with higher precision but short range."], [0065] and [0091]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Troy to move the robot base at a slower dynamic response and move the end effector at a faster dynamic response to correct for movement of the robot base away from an expected robot base position, as taught by Li, in order to cover a relatively larger range with the robotic base movement, while providing a fast response rate and high precision with the end effector movement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANNER LUKE CULLEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 MT.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/TANNER L CULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656