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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). This application is a 35 U.S.C. 371 of International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2023/069739, filed July 16, 2023, which claims the benefit of priority to French Patent Application No. 2207294, filed July 16, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features in claims 1-11 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims 1-11. No new matter should be entered. The instant application does not include any drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the features as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). The instant application does not include any drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract has 154 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term “ScanControl”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 uses the term “capable of”. It has been held that the recitation that an element is capable of performing a function is not positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense.
Claim 2 recites claim limitation “wherein, during the step of measuring a profile of the end of the movable part, each profilometer performs a measurement at a point A of the end of the movable part generating a measurement vector (x, z, α), with (x, z) designating coordinates of a point A of the profile at the end of the movable part and α a tangent to the profile at point A x being a coordinate along a scanning direction of the profilometer, approximately parallel to the direction of advance of the movable part and z being a coordinate along a transverse direction perpendicular to the scanning direction”. The claim appears to be a run-on sentence without proper punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites claim limitation “wherein it comprises an initialization step in which the position of the stationary part relative to the profilometers is determined so that three target vectors can be generated, including a first target vector (x'1, z'1, α'1) for a presentation step of the stationary part and the movable part, a second target vector (x'2, z'2, α'2) for an overlapping step of the stationary part and the movable part and a third target vector (x'3, z'3, α'3) for a pressing step of the stationary part and the movable part”. The claim appears to be a run-on sentence without proper punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites claim limitation “wherein during the presentation step of the stationary part and the movable part parts, distances between the stationary part and the movable part along a scanning direction (X) and a transverse direction are a few centimeters, during the overlapping step, the movable part translates towards the stationary part in the scanning direction to a distance of less than a few millimeters in the scanning direction, while maintaining a distance of a few centimeters from the stationary part in the transverse direction, during the pressing step, the movable part translates relative to the stationary part in the transverse direction until the stationary part and the movable part are in contact”. The claim appears to be a run-on sentence without proper punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing means” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “processing means configured to generate …” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Other than in repetition of the claim language at published paragraph [0027] of the specification, no description regarding what is structure of “processing means” for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”. Therefore, the claim is rejected under this section. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Claims 10-11 are rejected for being dependent on previous rejected based claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim limitation “processing means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Other than in repetition of the claim language at published paragraph [0027] of the specification, no description regarding what is structure of “processing means” for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant provides claim limitation “the end of each of the stationary part and the movable part forming a docking interface”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “docking interface” encompasses and further how the claimed “docking interface” are applied. Paragraph [0042] of the instant specification discloses “The two ends 4, 5 form a docking interface 6”. However, the instant specification is silent of how/what the orientation of the end of each of the stationary part and the movable part forming a docking interface. Since the drawings are not submitted in the instant application, the Examiner uses figure 1 of the WIPO publication (PCT/EP2023/069739) as a reference for Figure 1. According to the WIPO publication, reference number 6 is a space between two reference numbers 4 and 5 which are the ends of the stationary part 1 and the movable part 2. It is unclear what the “docking interface” is referring to and how the end of each of the stationary part and the movable part forming a docking interface. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, the claims recite “determining a target profile of the end of the movable part” and “wherein target vectors (x', z', α') are generated when determining a target profile of the end of the movable part, with (x', z') designating coordinates of a target point A' of a target profile and α' being a tangent to a target point A', x' being a coordinate in a scanning direction parallel to a direction of advance of the movable part and z' being a coordinate in a transverse direction”. However, there is no clarification is to how and/or what steps are done to determine a target profile and further to generate target vectors (x', z', α'). Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. In all, claims 1 and 3 lack specify, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, all the above steps are interpreted as capable of being performed via manual steps by human and/or automatically using tools. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “an initialization step in which the position of the stationary part relative to the profilometers is determined so that three target vectors can be generated”, but this step does not positively disclose what exact steps or tools are necessary for determining the position the position of the stationary part relative to the profilometers and generating three target vectors. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Claim 5 lacks specify, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above step is interpreted as capable of being performed via manual steps by human and/or automatically using tools.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “three successive servo-control loops of the profiles of the end of the movable part by the profilometers, obtained from an approximate position of the movable part relative to the robot and the approximate position of the profilometers and of the stationary part relative to the robot, making it possible to generate displacement velocities of the robot achieving desired velocities in a measurement space”, but this step does not positively disclose what exact steps or tools are necessary for obtaining three successive servo-control loops of the profiles of the end of the movable part from an approximate position of the movable part relative to the robot and the approximate position of the profilometers and of the stationary part relative to the robot and further generating displacement velocities of the robot achieving desired velocities. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Claim 6 lacks specify, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above step is interpreted as capable of being performed via manual steps by human and/or automatically using tools.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “wherein the servo-control loops each comprise a profile measurement operation at the point (A) of the end of the movable part by profilometers generating a measurement vector (x, z, α) during the presentation step of the stationary part and the movable part, the overlapping step of the stationary part and the movable part and the pressing step of the stationary part and the movable part”. However, there is no clarification is to how and/or what steps are done to generating a measurement vector (x, z, α). It is also unclear whether profilometers positively generating the measurement vector (x, z, α). Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Claim 7 lacks specify, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above step is interpreted as capable of being performed via manual steps by human and/or automatically using tools.
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant provides claim limitation “a profile of the end of the movable part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the claimed “a profile of the end of the movable part” is referring to claim limitation “a profile of the end of the movable part” in claim 1. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed. The Examiner assumes “the profile of the end of the movable part” for further examination.
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant provides claim limitation, “each profilometer performs a measurement at a point A of the end of the movable part generating a measurement vector (x, z, α), with (x, z) designating coordinates of a point A of the profile at the end of the movable part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the claimed “a point A of the end of the movable part” is referring to claim limitation “a point A of the profile at the end of the movable part”. It is also unclear whether the claimed “the profile at the end of the movable part” is referring to claim limitation “a profile of the end of the movable part” that was introduced in the same claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant provides claim limitation, “α a tangent to the profile at point A x being a coordinate along a scanning direction of the profilometer, approximately parallel to the direction of advance of the movable part and z being a coordinate along a transverse direction perpendicular to the scanning direction”. 1) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “α a tangent to the profile at point A x being a coordinate along a scanning direction of the profilometer” encompass. It appears the claimed should read “α being a tangent to the profile at point A, and x being a coordinate along a scanning direction of the profilometer”. 2) It is unclear whether the claimed “the profile” is referring to claim limitation “a profile of the end of the movable part”. 3) It is unclear whether the claimed “point A” is referring to claim limitation “a point A of the end of the movable part” or “a point A of the profile”. 4) It is unclear what the claimed “the profilometer” is referring to since there is multiple profilometers. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 5) The term “approximately” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what element is referring to and how that element is considered “approximately” parallel to the direction of advance of the movable part. 6) It is unclear what the claimed “the direction of advance of the movable part” is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 3, the Applicant provides claim limitation, “wherein target vectors (x', z', α') are generated when determining a target profile of the end of the movable part, with (x', z') designating coordinates of a target point A' of a target profile and α' being a tangent to a target point A', x' being a coordinate in a scanning direction parallel to a direction of advance of the movable part and z' being a coordinate in a transverse direction”. 1) It is unclear whether the claimed “a target profile of the end of the movable part” is referring to claim limitation “a target profile of the end of the movable part” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 2) It is unclear whether the claimed “a target profile” is referring to claim limitation “a target profile of the end of the movable part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 3) It is unclear whether the claimed “a target point A'” is referring to claim limitation “a target point A'” introduced earlier in the same claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 4, the Applicant provides claim limitation, “wherein measurement vectors (x, z, a) are compared with the target vectors (x', z', a') to determine a velocity vector in sensor space from their deviation, a pseudo-inverse operation of an interaction matrix being applied to this velocity vector to obtain Cartesian velocities, and a multiplication by an inverse Jacobian matrix of the robot being applied to the Cartesian velocities to obtain a movement setpoint”. 1) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “sensor space” encompasses and further how the claimed “sensor space” are applied. 2) It is unclear what the claimed “their” is referring to. Moreover, it is unclear whether the claimed “deviation” is referring to claim limitation “a deviation between the target profile and the measured profile” in claim 1. 3) It is unclear whether the claimed “this velocity vector” is referring to claim limitation “a velocity vector” in claim 4. 5) It is unclear whether the claimed “a movement setpoint” is referring to claim limitation “a movement setpoint” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 5, the Applicant provides claim limitation, “wherein it comprises an initialization step in which the position of the stationary part relative to the profilometers is determined so that three target vectors can be generated, including a first target vector (x'1, z'1, α'1) for a presentation step of the stationary part and the movable part, a second target vector (x'2, z'2, α'2) for an overlapping step of the stationary part and the movable part and a third target vector (x'3, z'3, α'3) for a pressing step of the stationary part and the movable part”. 1) It is unclear what the claimed “it” is referring to. 2) It is unclear what the claimed “the position of the stationary part” is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 3) It is unclear whether the claimed “the profilometers” is referring to claim limitation “multiple profilometers” in claim 1. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 6, the Applicant provides claim limitation, “wherein it further comprises, after the initialization step, three successive servo-control loops of the profiles of the end of the movable part by the profilometers, obtained from an approximate position of the movable part relative to the robot and the approximate position of the profilometers and of the stationary part relative to the robot, making it possible to generate displacement velocities of the robot achieving desired velocities in a measurement space”. 1) It is unclear what the claimed “it” is referring to. 2) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “successive” encompasses and further how the claimed “successive” is applied. The term “successive” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “successive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how to consider a servo-control loop is successive. Moreover, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “three successive servo-control loops of the profiles of the end of the movable part by the profilometers” and further how the claim limitation is applied. 3) The term “approximate” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “approximate position” encompassed and further how the claimed “approximate position” is applied in claim limitation “an approximate position of the movable part relative to the robot”. 4) The term “approximate” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “approximate position” encompassed and further how the claimed “approximate position” is applied in claim limitation “the approximate position of the profilometers and of the stationary part relative to the robot”. Moreover, it is also unclear whether the claimed “the approximate position” is referring to “an approximate position of the movable part relative to the robot”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “the approximate position of the profilometers and of the stationary part relative to the robot” encompasses and further how the claim limitation is applied. 6) It is unclear what the claimed “it” is referring. 7) The term “possible” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “possible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “making it possible” encompasses and further how the claimed “making it possible” are applied. 8) The term “desired” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “desired velocities” encompasses and further how the claimed “desired velocities” are applied to the claimed “displacement velocities of the robot”. 9) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “measurement space” encompasses and further how the claimed “measurement space” are applied. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 7, the Applicant provides claim limitation, “wherein the servo-control loops each comprise a profile measurement operation at the point (A) of the end of the movable part by profilometers generating a measurement vector (x, z, α) during the presentation step of the stationary part and the movable part, the overlapping step of the stationary part and the movable part and the pressing step of the stationary part and the movable part.” 1) it is unclear whether the claimed “the servo-control loops” is referring to claim limitation “three successive servo-control loops” in claim 6. 2) It is unclear what the claimed “the point (A)” is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 8, the Applicant provides claim limitation, “wherein during the presentation step of the stationary part and the movable part parts, distances between the stationary part and the movable part along a scanning direction (X) and a transverse direction are a few centimeters, during the overlapping step, the movable part translates towards the stationary part in the scanning direction to a distance of less than a few millimeters in the scanning direction, while maintaining a distance of a few centimeters from the stationary part in the transverse direction, during the pressing step, the movable part translates relative to the stationary part in the transverse direction until the stationary part and the movable part are in contact”. 1) It is unclear whether the claimed “a scanning direction (X)” is referring to claim limitation “a scanning direction” in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 2) The term “few centimeters” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “few centimeters” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “few centimeters” encompassed and further how the claimed “few centimeters” is applied to the claimed “distances between the stationary part and the movable part along a scanning direction (X) and a transverse direction”. It is also unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “distances” encompassed and further how the claimed “distances” is applied to the claimed “between the stationary part and the movable part along a scanning direction (X) and a transverse direction”. 3) It is unclear whether the claimed “the scanning direction” is referring to claim limitation “a scanning direction (X)” or claim limitation “a scanning direction” in claim 3. 4) The term “less than a few millimeters” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “less than a few millimeters” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “less than a few millimeters” encompasses and further how the claimed “less than a few millimeters” are applied in the claim limitation “the movable part translates towards the stationary part in the scanning direction to a distance of less than a few millimeters in the scanning direction”. 5) The term “few centimeters” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “few centimeters” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “few centimeters” encompasses and further how the claimed “few centimeters” are applied in the claim limitation “while maintaining a distance of a few centimeters from the stationary part in the transverse direction”. 6) The term “in contact” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in contact” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “in contact” encompasses and further how the claimed “few centimeters” are applied in the claim limitation “until the stationary part and the movable part are in contact”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 9, the Applicant provides claim limitation “wherein it comprises: multiple profilometers distributed at different points of the interface and configured to measure the profile of the end of the movable part and the profile of the end of the stationary part, processing means configured to generate a movement setpoint for the movable part relative to the stationary part from measurements of the profile of the end of the movable part and the profile of the end of the stationary part performed by the profilometers, and a robot configured to move the movable part relative to the stationary part according to the movement setpoint”. 1) It is unclear what the claimed “it” is referring to. 2) The Applicant provides claim limitation “the end of each of the stationary part and the movable part forming a docking interface”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “docking interface” encompasses and further how the claimed “docking interface” are applied. Paragraph [0042] of the instant specification discloses “The two ends 4, 5 form a docking interface 6”. However, the instant specification is silent of how/what the orientation of the end of each of the stationary part and the movable part forming a docking interface. Since the drawings are not submitted in the instant application, the Examiner uses figure 1 of the WIPO publication (PCT/EP2023/069739) as a reference for Figure 1. According to the WIPO publication, reference number 6 is a space between two reference numbers 4 and 5 which are the ends of the stationary part 1 and the movable part 2. It is unclear what the “docking interface” is referring to and how the end of each of the stationary part and the movable part forming a docking interface. 3) It is unclear whether the claimed “the interface” is referring to claim limitation “a docking interface”. 4) It is unclear what the claimed “the profile” is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 5) It is unclear whether the claimed “multiple profilometers” is referring to claim limitation “multiple profilometers” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 6) It is unclear whether the claimed “a movement setpoint” is referring to claim limitation “a movement setpoint” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 7) It is unclear whether the claimed “the profilometers” is referring to claim limitation “multiple profilometers” in claim 9. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear whether the claimed “the profilometers” is referring to claim limitation “multiple profilometers” in claim 9. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear whether the claimed “the profilometers” is referring to claim limitation “multiple profilometers” in claim 9. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is needed.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasquez et al. (US 10275565 B2), and further in view of Guang et al. (CN109693085A).
Regarding claim 1, Vasquez discloses a method for automated docking of a stationary part with a movable part capable of being moved towards the stationary part by a robot (Vasquez, see at least Figs. 1, 2, col. 1, col. 4, col.7, method for automated joining/mating a stationary part 16/body with a movable part 14/wing, the movable part 14/wing is being manipulated by mobile positioners 62), the stationary part and the movable part each comprising an end, the end of each of the stationary part and the movable part forming a docking interface (Vasquez, see at least Fig. 1, col. 4, “Each of the wing root 20 and the wing stub 30 have interface structures such as flanges, panels, fittings, frames, spars, ridges, grooves, pins, holes, etc. that are configured to mate together. The interface structures mate with the corresponding structures of the opposite wing root 20 or wing stub 30”), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
positioning multiple position sensors (Vasquez, see at least Figs. 2, 3, col. 13, “Methods 100 may include using at least three position sensors 66 to monitor the relative position of the wing 14 and body 16. The position sensors 66 also may be referred to as position feedback sensors 66. The relative position measured by the position sensors 66 may be used to automatically guide the alignment process”; col. 18, “The method of any of paragraphs A1-A10.1.2, wherein the generating includes measuring the wing root 3D surface profile and the wing stub 3D surface profile by laser profilometry”),
determining a target position sensors (Vasquez, see at least cols. 15-16, aligning the wing 14 and the body 16 based on the difference/residual offset between a reference position and a detected position: “Aligning 146 may include measuring the relative positions (e.g., distances, orientations, angles, and/or other objective measures) between reference features of alignment pairs 72 of reference features with the corresponding position sensors 66 … Aligning 146 may determine the relative positions of the reference features of each alignment pair 72 (as compared to the residual offsets), calculate the error metric, and move the wing 14 and body 16 to reduce the error metric”).
Guang teaches a method for docking two modules on two different platforms using profilometers to determine whether two modules are correctly aligned based on monitoring spatial pose of the two modules and distance between them (Guang, see at least Figs. 1-3, whole specification).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Vasquez to include, docking two modules on two different platforms using profilometers to determine whether two modules are correctly aligned, as taught by Guang. This modification would allow to dock two modules on two different platforms based on monitoring spatial pose of the two modules and distance between them in real time during the docking process (Guang, see at least par. [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Vasquez and Guang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The combination of Vasquez and Guang further teaches wherein, during the step of measuring a profile of the end of the movable part, each profilometer performs a measurement at a point A of the end of the movable part generating a measurement vector (x, z, α), with (x, z) designating coordinates of a point A of the profile at the end of the movable part and α a tangent to the profile at point A x being a coordinate along a scanning direction of the profilometer, approximately parallel to the direction of advance of the movable part and z being a coordinate along a transverse direction perpendicular to the scanning direction (Guang, see at least Figs. 1-3, par. [0013], “The coordinate system of the auxiliary vehicle is xb1 yb1 zb1 ob1, the coordinate system of the main vehicle is xa ya za oa, and the measurement coordinate system XYZO is formed by the laser profilometer 2 and the precision moving guide rail. Planes 6.1 and 6.2 are the horizontal and vertical planes of the main vehicle on the connecting ears of the main vehicle. Planes 7.1 and 7.2 are the horizontal and vertical planes of the auxiliary vehicle on the connecting ears of the auxiliary vehicle. The laser profiler 2 can move in the XOY plane, where the XOY plane is installed at a 45-degree angle to the horizontal plane”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Vasquez and Guang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The combination of Vasquez and Guang further teaches a device for automated docking of a movable part towards a stationary part implementing a docking method as defined in claim 1, the stationary part and the movable part each comprising one end, the end of each of the stationary part and the movable part forming a docking interface (Vasquez, see at least Fig. 1, col. 4, “Each of the wing root 20 and the wing stub 30 have interface structures such as flanges, panels, fittings, frames, spars, ridges, grooves, pins, holes, etc. that are configured to mate together. The interface structures mate with the corresponding structures of the opposite wing root 20 or wing stub 30”), wherein it comprises:
multiple profilometers distributed at different points of the interface and configured to measure the profile of the end of the movable part and the profile of the end of the stationary part (Vasquez, see at least Fig. 3, col. 5, “the scanning head 42 may be configured to measure by photogrammetry, stereo-imaging, laser profilometry, optical interference techniques, and/or by optical time-of-flight techniques”; cols. 13-14, position sensors 66 to monitor the relative position of the wing 14 and body 16; Guang, see at least Figs. 1-3, whole specification, docking two modules on two different platforms using profilometers to determine whether two modules are correctly aligned based on monitoring spatial pose of the two modules and distance between them),
processing means configured to generate a movement setpoint for the movable part relative to the stationary part from measurements of the profile of the end of the movable part and the profile of the end of the stationary part performed by the profilometers (Vasquez, see at least col. 18, “The method of any of paragraphs A1-A10.1.2, wherein the generating includes measuring the wing root 3D surface profile and the wing stub 3D surface profile by laser profilometry “; col. 19, “The method of any of paragraphs A1-A18, wherein the aligning includes supporting the aircraft wing with at least three (optionally three) computer-controlled mobile positioners that are configured to move the aircraft wing along at least three translational directions and about at least three rotational axes, and wherein the aligning includes moving the aircraft wing with the mobile positioners”), and
a robot configured to move the movable part relative to the stationary part according to the movement setpoint (Vasquez, see at least Fig. 1, col. 5, one or more mobile positioners 62).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Vasquez and Guang teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. The combination of Vasquez and Guang further teaches wherein the profilometers are laser profilometers evenly distributed around an alignment interface (Vasquez, see at least Fig. 3, cols. 13-14, position sensors 66 to monitor the relative position of the wing 14 and body 16).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Vasquez and Guang teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above. The combination of Vasquez and Guang further teaches wherein the profilometers are integral with a stationary part of the robot (Vasquez, see at least Fig. 1, cols. 5-6, the scanning platform 40 may include an arm 44 and a carriage 46 of a robot; Guang, see at least Figs. 1-3, whole specification, teaches the profilometers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/TRANG DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656