DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the French Patent Office on 22 December 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of French Patent App. No. FR2314998 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending in the present application, with claims 1 and 5 being independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “…said end effector comprising at least three strain sensors….” The examiner notes, however, that later in claim 1, Applicant claims: “…said device being connected to said three strain sensors….” The examiner recommends amending the latter limitation to recite: “…said device being connected to said at least three strain sensors…” or the like.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant claims: “obtaining three first pieces of information representative of stresses exerted in the first direction, which pieces of information are obtained from said three sensors, respectively….” The examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: “obtaining three first pieces of information representative of stresses exerted in the first direction, wherein the three first pieces of information are obtained from said at least three strain sensors, respectively…” or the like.
Claim 5 contains limitations similar to that of claim 1, and is similarly objected to.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed towards a “computer program product” (i.e. software per se). Claim 10 is directed towards “a storage medium comprising a computer program product,” (i.e., signals per se, see at least MPEP 2106.03(II), “a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disk or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. As being directed to non-statutory subject matter”) Therefore, claims 9 and 10 are not within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Hence, claims 9 and 10 are not patent eligible.
The examiner recommends consolidating claims 9 and 10 in a manner that causes the claim to be directed towards statutory subject matter, for example, “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program code instructions for executing the steps of the method according to claim 1…” or the like.
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, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soulie (US 20210284359 A1), hereafter Soulie.
Regarding claim 1, Soulie discloses a method for positioning an end effector of a multi-axis robot, said end effector being configured to bear a tool extending longitudinally in a first direction (0064-0066, The articulated arm 26 is designed to be moved by the control system 31 in a translational movement along the rail 24. The articulated arm 26 is advantageously designed to move the machine tool 28 with respect to the object 5 in a translational movement in the three directions X′, Y′, Z′ and in inclination about the directions X′ and Y′… The machine tool 28 comprises a housing 30 defining an opening 32 and intended to be placed by the articulated arm 26 in a machining position (FIG. 1), in which the opening 32 is situated facing the surface that is to be machined 16… The opening 32 extends for example in a plane P perpendicular to a direction Z which is advantageously vertical when the articulated arm 26 is in a neutral position (not depicted).) and said end effector comprising at least three strain sensors configured to deliver pieces of information representative of stresses exerted on said end effector in the Z-direction (0073, The three bearers 44, 46, 48 are equipped with strain gauges 44A, 46A, 48A designed to measure the pressure forces F1, F2, F3 (FIG. 4) exerted respectively by the bearers on the surface that is to be machined 16. The bearers 44, 46, 48 for example project in the direction Z from a rim 68 of the housing 30. For example, the bearers 44, 46 are aligned in the direction Y and situated on the side of the face 38 of the housing with respect to the opening 32. For example, the bearer 48 is situated on the other side of the opening 32 with respect to the bearers 44, 46, in the direction X. As visible in FIG. 4, the bearers 44, 46, 48 advantageously form an isosceles triangle when viewed in the direction Z.), said method being executed in a device for controlling positioning of said end effector, said device being connected to said three strain sensors and connected to positioning actuators of said robot, which are configured to position said end effector in said first direction and two other directions that are perpendicular to each other and each perpendicular to said first direction (0096, The control system 31 evaluates the position parameter or parameters and, if these do not meet predefined criteria, the articulated arm 26 is controlled in such a way as to correct the position of the housing 30 with respect to the surface that is to be machined 16.), said method being characterized in that is comprises, executed iteratively, the following steps:
Obtaining three first pieces of information representative of stresses exerted in the first direction, which pieces of information are obtained from said three sensors, respectively (0099, The touch-down phase involves applying the three bearers 44, 46, 48 to the surface that is to be machined 16, and measurement by the strain gauges 44A, 46A, 48A of the pressure forces F1, F2, F3 exerted by the bearers on the surface that is to be machined.),
Effecting a first automatic control of the position of said end effector in the first direction based on said three first pieces of information while effecting a second automatic control of the position of said end effector in the other two directions based on said three first pieces of information (0100-0103, The articulated arm 26 is actuated in order to apply pressure to the three bearers 44, 46, 48 in which the strain gauges 44A, 46A, 48A are situated. The values provided by the strain gauges 44A, 46A, 48A are monitored by the control system 31. Advantageously, whichever bearer is the first to touch the surface that is to be machined 16, the pressure exerted by the articulated arm 26 is interrupted if a strain gauge returns a pressure force value higher than a predefined value, for example 15 kg… Advantageously, application of the three bearers 44, 46, 48 is performed in succession. For example, if the bearer 44 is first to touch the surface that is to be machined 16, then the bearer 44 is loaded until the pressure force F1 reaches a predefined value, for example of 11 kg… Next, the articulated arm 26 causes the housing 30 to rotate about the point bearer 44 until a second bearer, for example the bearer 46, touches the surface that is to be machined and until the pressure force F2 measured by the strain gauge 46A reaches a predefined value, for example of eleven kilograms. The rotation of the housing 30 about the bearer 44 is performed for example about an axis Δ1 passing through the bearer 44 and through the bearer 48… Finally, the third bearer, which in this example is the bearer 48, is brought into contact with the surface that is to be machined 16 by moving the housing 30 in rotation about an axis Δ2 that passes through the bearers 44 to 46. Rotation is interrupted when the pressure force F3 measured reaches a predefined value, for example of 11 kg.).
Claims 5, 9, and 10 are similar in scope to claim 1, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 3, Soulie discloses the method for positioning an end effector of a multi-axis robot according to claim 1, and further discloses the method further comprising a preliminary step of positioning said end effector facing and flush with a surface of a workpiece by virtue of at least three optical laser transceiver modules (0092-0094, During the approach phase, the telemeters 58, 60, 62 provide parameters indicative of the distances D1, D2, D3 making it possible to control parallelism between the opening 32 and a mean plane P′ of the surface that is to be machined 16. For example, the control system 31 calculates, from these parameters, an angle θ between the direction Z (which is fixed with respect to the housing 30) and the mean plane P′. In the example depicted, an angle θ of 90° represents perfect parallelism. The more the angle θ decreases, the more the housing 30 diverges from this position of parallelism… The control system 31 moves the housing 30 in such a way that the angle θ does not deviate from 90° excessively, which means to say so that the plane P and the mean plane P′ remain more or less parallel… As an alternative, the approach phase is performed by keeping control over another parameter, other than the angle θ, indicative of the parallelism between the planes P and P′.).
Claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 4, Soulie discloses the method for positioning an end effector of a multi-axis robot according to claim 1, and further discloses the method being configured to effect drilling operations on aeronautical-equipment parts by means of said multi-axis robot bearing a drilling tool (0010, the invention relates to an installation for machining an object, notably part of an aeroplane wing, the object defining a surface that is to be machined, for example, the perimeter of an inspection hole, 0004-0006, The number of inspection holes to be machined is typically several tens of holes, for example around thirty. The machine tool has in all cases to be positioned very precisely, because the machining tool follows a preprogramed path… Each inspection hole is generally first of all made with a very high-pressure waterjet cutter. The edges of the inspection hole then need to be machined precisely… In order to perform such machining operations it is known practice to use a machine tool comprising a housing defining an opening, and a machining tool mounted with the ability to move inside the housing.).
Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
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.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soulie in view of Ushio (US 20100319193 A1), hereafter Ushio, and further in view of Spicer (US 20150165673 A1), hereafter Spicer.
Regarding claim 2, Soulie discloses the method for positioning an end effector of a multi-axis robot according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein effecting said first automatic control of the position of said end effector comprises:
Determining a first difference between the sum of said three first pieces of information and a predetermined target stress in the Z-direction, and
When said determined first difference is greater than a predefined first threshold value, correcting a positioning setpoint of said end effector of said robot in the first direction so as to reduce said first difference, and
Wherein effecting said second automatic control of the position of said end effector comprises:
Determining second differences between the average of said three first pieces of information and each of said first pieces of information, and
When at least one of said determined second differences is greater than a predefined second threshold value, correcting a positioning setpoint of said end effector of said robot in either or both of said two other directions so as to reduce said second differences or differences.
Ushio, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach:
Determining a first difference between said three first pieces of information and a predetermined target stress in the Z-direction (0131, Shifting the break to "the release position" (S03), keeping the pressing action by the arm 10 (S04), the controller 80 repeats to decide whether the difference values among the detected values from each of the sensors 31 are smaller than the given value (S02), and when the difference values among the detected values from upper and lower sensors 31 are smaller than the given value as shown in FIG. 11, shifting the break to "the lock position" (S05), the arm 10 keeps pressing (S06).), and
When said determined first difference is greater than a predefined first threshold value, correcting a positioning setpoint of said end effector of said robot in the first direction so as to reduce said first difference (0132, Since when the difference values among the detected values from upper and lower sensors 31 are smaller than the given value, the peripheral edge of the window 5 is decided to contact equally to the frame 7a, the arm 10 presses the window 5 with keeping the contacting posture equally to the frame 7a.), and
Wherein effecting said second automatic control of the position of said end effector comprises:
Determining second differences between the expected value of said three first pieces of information and each of said first pieces of information (0125, When starting the action of the arm 10 for pressing the window 5 to the frame 7a, transmitting the detected values from the sensors 31 to the unit 84 of the controller 80, calculating the difference values among the detected values, the controller decides whether or not the difference values are smaller than the value given in advance (S02).), and
When at least one of said determined second differences is greater than a predefined second threshold value, correcting a positioning setpoint of said end effector of said robot in either or both of said two other directions so as to reduce said second differences or differences (0126, In the step S02, when the difference values are decided to be larger than the given value, the controller decides that the window 5 is not properly contacted to the frame 7a, involving the one-side-contacted as shown in FIG. 8, so the contacting posture of the window 5 to the frame 7a is corrected to contact all over the peripheral edge portion of the window 5 to the frame 7a with equal force.).
Soulie and Ushio are analogous because they are in a similar field of endeavor, e.g., robotic manufacturing systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Soulie to have included the force-based alignment of Ushio in order to provide a means of increasing the accuracy of the machining process. The motivation to combine is to allow the system to ensure that the work is performed in the proper orientation (see at least 0032 of Ushio).
The combination of Soulie and Ushio fails to explicitly teach, however, wherein the first difference is a difference between the sum of said three first pieces of information and a predetermined target stress; and
Wherein the second difference is a difference between the average of said three first pieces of information and each of said first pieces of information.
Spicer, however, in an analogous field of endeavor, does teach a manufacturing system wherein:
The first difference is a difference between the sum of said three first pieces of information and a predetermined target stress (0036, Monitoring each load sell 25B individually helps to ensure the weld pressure applied at each weld pad 21 is correct. Additionally, determining the total clamp force Ft allows for the diagnosis of at least three different issues within the welding equipment 10. A determination that the total clamp force Ft is too low or too high may indicate an issue with the air pressure that is supplied to the welder device 12, e.g., an air leak, the setting for air pressure is too high or too low, and the like. If the total clamp force Ft is slightly low or slightly high, it may be possible to adjust the air pressure automatically to re-target the total clamp force Ft to a target value.); and
The second difference is a difference between the average of said three first pieces of information and each of said first pieces of information (0036, A determination that the total clamp force Ft is in an acceptable range, yet a difference between the individual clamp forces Fc of different weld pads 21 is too high may signify a misalignment between the welding horn 14 and welding anvil 16.)
Soulie, Ushio, and Spicer are analogous because they are all reasonably pertinent to solving the problem of ensuring proper alignment in a manufacturing process. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the determination of both total and individual forces of Spicer in order to provide a means of further determining the alignment of the manufacturing process. The motivation to combine is to ensure that both the total and individual forces are within acceptable limits (see at least 0035-0036 of Spicer).
Claim 6 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oka (US 20110010011 A1) teaches a robotic having three strain sensors located in the body of the robotic arm.
Wanner (US 20180169813 A1) teaches a method for machining boreholes in a workpiece, wherein the position of the machining tool is determined and corrected on the basis of three laser distance sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658