DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to amended claims filed on 05/26/26. Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of
claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19 are directed towards the claims as amended. Claims 1, 10, and 19 remain rejected under 35 USC § 102, and the amended claim limitations of “a set of measured values” and “a set of constraints” are addressed by Chang et al (US Patent application publication 20240383145A1 hereinafter “Chang”) in the rejection below. There is a new ground of rejection to address the amended claims 4 and 13 under 35 USC § 103 of Chang in view of Stepanova et al (K Stepanova, J Rozlivek, F Puciow, P Krsek, T Pajdla, M Hoffmann. Automatic self-contained calibration of an industrial dual-arm robot with cameras using self-contact, planar constraints, and self-observation. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Volume 73, 2022, 102250, ISSN 0736-5845, hereinafter "Stepanova") with further details below. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejections of dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 20 are directed towards the mere allegation of patentability. Therefore, no new ground of rejection is provided.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al (US Patent application publication 20240383145A1 hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chang discloses in figures 1-6
A method for calibrating a robot (300) in a workcell, wherein the method comprises:
causing the robot (100) to move an end effector (210) to make contact with multiple points (232-236) on a calibration object (220) within the workcell, wherein the robot defines a robot flange coordinate frame (620) and the end effector defines an end effector coordinate frame (630);
Chang pertains to a method for calibrating a robot and a tool center position (TCP). Chang details the multiple point calibration method in figures 4 and 5, stating “In FIG. 4A, the probe tool 210 may be placed on the surface of the calibration object 220 at multiple arm positions 230, 232, 234 and 236. For example, the engineer may move the probe tool 210 and make the ball probe 212 to touch the surface at various positions while keep the posture of the probe tool 210 unchanged” (0048). Chang details the different coordinate frames in figure 6, stating “As illustrated in FIG. 6, a base coordinate 610 is related to the base of the robot system 200, an arm coordinate 620 is a coordinate for a flange of the arm 122 (also called as the tool0 coordinate), and a TCP coordinate 630 is a representation in the arm coordinate 620” (0064).
Chang further discloses in figure 4A
for each of the multiple points at which the end effector made contact with the calibration object:
reading joint configurations of the robot when the robot is holding the end effector in contact with the point; and
determining a target location of the point in the end effector coordinate frame based on a known geometry of the calibration object ; and
In the illustrated embodiment of figure 4A, the robot places the probe tool end effector in contact with the spherical calibration object and reads the joint configurations, specifically “Once the probe tool 210 is placed at a position on the surface, a corresponding arm position may be read from the robot system. When the arm positions are represented in the six degrees of freedom, the arm position 230 may be represented as (x1, y1, z1, pitch, yaw, roll), the arm position 232 may be represented as (x2, y2, z2, pitch, yaw, roll), the arm position 234 may be represented as (x3, y3, z3, pitch, yaw, roll), and the arm position 236 may be represented as (x4, y4, z4, pitch, yaw, roll)” (0049). The target location of the ball point of the probe tool end effector, in the end effector coordinate frame, based on the known spherical geometry of the calibration object, is represented as (x, y, z) and determined with formulas 1-11 as detailed in 0052-0057. Chang further discloses in formula 12-16
determining, based on (i) the read joint configurations of the robot and (ii) the target locations of the points in the end effector coordinate frame, a robot flange-to-end effector transformation between the robot flange coordinate frame and the end effector coordinate frame by passing a set of measured values and a set of constraints as inputs into an optimization function, wherein the set of measured values comprises values that define a transformation between a base of the robot and the robot flange derived from the read joint configurations, and wherein the set of constraints are defined by the known geometry of the calibration object.
Chang discloses a robot flange-to-end effector transformation by stating “In some embodiments, a transformation relationship between an arm coordinate of the robot arm and a TCP coordinate of the robot system 200 may be determined based on the plurality of reference positions” (0064), further specifying “in order to determine the transformation relationship, an equation may be generated based on a geometry relationship among the arm coordinate 620, the TCP coordinate 630, and the base coordinate 610 of the robot system 200” (0065). These equations are disclosed in formula 12-16. Chang further discloses the use of an optimization function by stating “Therefore, the unknown tET may be determined based on the least square method and then the transformation relationship may be determined. With these embodiments, the technical problem of determining the transformation relationship is converted into a mathematic problem for solving the unknown parameters in Formula (16). Here, the equation may be easily solved by a least square method and then the transformation relationship may be determined in a fast and effective way” (0070). To further clarify that the measured values are derived from the read joint configurations, Chang specifies “TBEi represents the ith (i=0, 1, 2, 3) reference position… TBT represents a relationship between the base coordinate and the TCP coordinate” (0066). To further clarify that the constraints are defined by the known geometry of the calibration object, Chang specifies “Here, members in the above matrix A and B have known values” (0057).
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses in figure 6 and 0075
wherein the robot also defines a robot base coordinate frame (610), wherein the calibration object (220) defines a calibration object coordinate frame,
where the position and posture of the center of the calibration object is defined. Defining the position and the posture of a center point is analogous to defining a coordinate frame. Chang further details in 0064
and wherein the method further comprises:
determining, based at least on the target locations of the points in the end effector coordinate frame, a robot base-to-calibration object transformation between the robot base coordinate frame and the calibration object coordinate frame.
where the “plurality of reference positions” described by Chang correspond to the coordinate frame of the calibration object, and the subsequent transformation into the robot base coordinate frame 610.
Regarding claim 5, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses in figure 8 and 0016 wherein the calibration object has a three-dimensional (3-D) shape.
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses in 0006 and 0077 wherein the calibration object is a non-functional object placed in a reserved location in the workcell where the calibration object is described as being distinctly different from a workpiece and being at a fixed position within the working environment of the robot system.
Regarding Claim 10, Chang discloses in figure 10 and 0089
A system (1000) comprising one or more computers (1010) and one or more storage devices (1020) storing instructions (1022) that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations for calibrating a robot in a workcell, wherein the operations comprise:
The remainder of claim 10 is rejected as detailed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 11, 14, and 15, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and further discloses the limitations in the same manner as claim 2, claim 5, and claim 6 as detailed above.
Regarding Claim 19, Chang discloses
One or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations for calibrating a robot in a workcell, wherein the operations comprise:
by detailing the use of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium in 0093. The remainder of claim 19 is rejected as detailed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 19 and the remainder of claim 20 is rejected as detailed in claim 2 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 3, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Yang et al et al (US patent application 20210187745, hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, but does not teach the location of the origin of the robot base coordinate frame. However, Yang teaches the robot base coordinate frame has an origin at a center of a base of the robot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant' s invention to translate the robot base coordinate frame origin to the center the base of the robot, since applicant has not disclosed that having the origin at the center of the base of the robot solves any stated problem, provides any advantage, or is used for any particular purpose. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that the invention would perform equally well with either the robot base coordinate frame origin at the center of the base of the robot or the robot base coordinate frame origin translated to a different location of the base of the robot. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obviousness to modify the origin of the robot base coordinate frame of Chang (610) to obtain the location of the origin of the robot base coordinate frame of Yang because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 2 but does not teach defining the workpiece coordinate frame. However, Yang teaches
wherein the workcell comprises a workpiece that defines a workpiece coordinate frame, and wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining a transformation between the calibration object coordinate frame and the workpiece coordinate frame; and
determining a robot base-to-workpiece transformation between the robot base coordinate frame and the workpiece coordinate frame.
Yang pertains to an automated calibration system for a robot and describes in 0071-0073 how once the points on the workpiece have been obtained by the robot, they can be transformed into a workpiece coordinate frame. Specifically, step S88 states “Derive coordinates of a virtual tool center point TCP and the workpiece W with respect to the robot R by a tool-center calibration method.” Thus, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of defining a workpiece coordinate frame disclosed by Yang to the workpiece location points obtained by the device disclosed by Chang to obtain a robot base-to-workpiece transformation in order to increase the precision of the robot.
Regarding claim 9, Chang in view of Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, including the robot base-to-workpiece transformation, and Chang further discloses in 0041 and 0078
generating commands based on the robot base-to-workpiece transformation to control the robot to manipulate the workpiece.
when the accurate operation of a cutting tool for shaping the workpiece is proposed.
Regarding claim 12, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 10, and Chang in view of Yang discloses the remained of claim 12 as described in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 10, and Chang in view of Yang discloses the remained of claim 17 as described in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18, Chang in view of Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 17, and Chang discloses the remained of claim 18 as described in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Claims 4, 7, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Stepanova et al (K Stepanova, J Rozlivek, F Puciow, P Krsek, T Pajdla, M Hoffmann. Automatic self-contained calibration of an industrial dual-arm robot with cameras using self-contact, planar constraints, and self-observation. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Volume 73, 2022, 102250, ISSN 0736-5845, hereinafter "Stepanova").
Regarding Claim 4, Chang discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses
wherein determining the robot flange-to-end effector transformation comprises:
determining, based on using a optimization algorithm to solve the optimization function, refined values of a set of parameters that define the robot flange-to-end effector transformation.
Chang teaches a flange to end effector transformation by stating “In some embodiments, in order to determine the transformation relationship, an equation may be generated based on a geometry relationship among the arm coordinate 620, the TCP coordinate 630, and the base coordinate 610 of the robot system 200. Then, the transformation relationship may be determined by solving the equation. Specifically, the following Formula (12) exists in the robot system 200: TBEi ∙ TEiT=TBT” (0065). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that the same equation can be used to solve for a flange-to-end effector transformation, albeit in the form TFEi ∙ TEiT=TFT. Chang teaches the use of a least square optimization function to solve the equation, but is silent on the details if a linear or nonlinear model is used. However, Stepanova teaches the use of a nonlinear optimization method to determine the refined values of a robotic calibration transformation. Stepanova discloses on page 11 in section 4.6 Non-linear Least Squares Optimization that "For solving the optimization problem, the Levenberg-Marquardt iterative algorithm was employed. This is a standard choice for kinematic calibration." Thus, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art to use a nonlinear optimization algorithm such as the Levenberg-Marquardt technique proposed by Stepanova to provide the details on the optimization function used to solve the equations disclosed by Chang when defining the robot flange to end effector transformation.
Regarding claim 7, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses in 0046 wherein causing the robot to move the end effector to make contact with multiple points on the calibration object comprises: when the contact between the end effector and calibration object is described as “The probe tool 210 may be controlled and moved to multiple arm positions to touch the surface of the calibration object.” Chang does not teach that force sensing be used to determine if contact has been achieved. However, Stepanova teaches on page 4 in section 3.3 Robot Control for Contact Configurations Using Force Feedback
determining whether the end effector makes contact with the calibration object through force sensing.
where the use of 6-axis force/torque sensors placed between the last link of the manipulator and end effectors are used to determine when the end effector makes contact. Thus, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art to use a force sensor at the distal end of the end effector as proposed by Stepanova to determine if contact has been made between the robot probe and calibration object during the technique disclosed by Chang.
Regarding Claim 13, Chang in view of Stepanova discloses all the limitations of claim 13 in a similar manner to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16, Chang discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 but does not teach the use of a force sensor. Stepanova teaches the remainder of claim 16 as detailed in claim 7 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.
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 Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights