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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s election of Group I drawn to Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 15 June 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant argues that the Examiner did not provide evidence the groups are independent and distinct, the Examiner did not provide evidence that there would be an undue burden to search all of the groups, and that the groups having the same classification indicates the groups may not be distinct. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the restriction is made FINAL. Groups can be distinct when they are in the same classification, the Examiner provided evidence the groups in the instant application are independent and distinct in the Requirement for Restriction/Election Office Action dated 15 April 2026 (see pages 2-3). Furthermore, the Examiner provided evidence of search / examination burden for the groups in the instant application in the Requirement for Restriction/Election Office Action dated 15 April 2026 (see pages 3-4): “there would be a serious search and/or examination burden…each patentably distinct invention carries unique characteristics that would need to be specifically searched for including employing different search queries” (i.e., the burden is not related to classification).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn for being directed to a non-elected invention.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Effective Filing Date
Acknowledge is made of Applicant’s claim to domestic benefit to provisional application 63/616,506 filed 29 December 2023. The provisional application shares similar subject matter to the instant claims. However, the provisional application is not the same length as the instant application, so if during prosecution, the examiner applies prior art references that predate the instant application’s filing date, but do not predate the provisional application (i.e., an intervening reference), it is because the examiner determined that there is insufficient support for one or more limitations to allow for the earlier filing date (the filing date of the provisional application). In that situation, applicant may provide rebuttal by evidencing written description support from the provisional application, and if it is found sufficient by the examiner, then that rejection will be withdrawn at that time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 July 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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), 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) 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:
“final position corrector to” in Claim 8
“calibration validator to” in Claim 14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites “correcting the second part pose estimation using a chassis pose estimation” (see similar rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/35 U.S.C. 112(b) below). 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).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 10: “the regions of interest” should be “the fixed region of interest and the region of interest on the board
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Examiner believes there is a typo in the claims, Claims 1 and 8 recite “correcting the second part pose estimation using a chassis pose estimation” and “correct the second part pose estimation using a chassis pose estimation”, respectively, but the specification describes the correction is not to the second part pose estimation but to the part alignment relative to the chassis in view of the second part pose estimation and the chassis pose estimation (specification paragraphs [0038] and [0046] and FIG. 2A steps 204, 216, and 218). The specification does not provide support for “correcting the second part pose estimation using a chassis pose estimation”. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 8 recite “correcting the second part pose estimation using a chassis pose estimation” and “correct the second part pose estimation using a chassis pose estimation”, respectively. In view of the specification, the metes and bounds of the claims are indefinite because the specification describes the correction is not to the second part pose estimation but to the part alignment relative to the chassis in view of the second part pose estimation (specification paragraphs [0038] and [0046] and FIG. 2A steps 204, 216, and 218). One of ordinary skill in the art would not know if Applicant intends for this claim limitation to be in line with the specification (e.g., for Claim 1 “correcting a position and/or orientation of the part relative to the chassis based on the second part pose estimation and
Claims 1-14 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 8 recite “…thereby performing multi-stage verification” and “wherein the multi-stage verification ensures that a high value part is not damaged in the assembly”, the metes and bounds are indefinite because verification is not claimed multiple times or even once. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will disregard both limitations. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “applying a final position correction by verifying a position…”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to correct a position “by verifying”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will assume the claim recites “applying a final position correction [[by]]based on
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 8-14 are directed to a system, therefore, Claims 8-14 are directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 8-14 are directed to abstract ideas, specifically mental processes. A human mind can “calculate a first part post estimation for the part in a pick area”, “calculate a second part pose estimation for the part being held by the robot arm above the chassis”, “correct the second part pose estimate using a chassis pose estimation”. The human mind can further complete many of the limitations in the dependent claims.
The additional elements in Claims 8-14 are as follows:
Computers (run-time pick location computer, a run-time place location computer, a final position corrector, calibration validator)
A robot arm configured to pick up a part, move the part, and insert the part
Computers configured to process sensor data
Step 2A Prong Two: the additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additional elements in grouping a merely apply the abstract idea to a computer (see MPEP 2105.06(f)), additional elements in groupings b and c merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2105.06(h)).
Step 2B: the additional elements individually and in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Office takes Official Notice that they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Applicant should affirmatively claim a discrete control step (e.g., controlling the robot arm to move) in Claim 8 to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claiming that a robot arm is configured to move is not a discrete control step.
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.
(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 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0009468 (Lizotte et al., hereinafter, Lizotte).
Regarding Claim 1, Lizotte discloses A method for an assembly operation for inserting a part into a chassis (see at least FIG. 1: seals 136 are inserted into engine elements 122), the method comprising:
calculating a first part pose estimation for the part in a pick area; picking up the part from the pick area using a robot arm, and moving the part above the chassis to an approach point (see at least [0095], FIG. 2C, and FIG. 2D: “The system 200 may cause the gripper to perform a function, such as grasping or gripping the seal 236, then removing the seal 236 from the bin 234, or from another location such as a transfer station”; estimation of seal 236 pose is implicit / required in order for robotic arm 202 to pick up the seal 236);
calculating a second part pose estimation for the part being held by the robot arm above the chassis (see at least [0121]-[0125], FIG. 5, and FIG. 7: the part pose is estimated based on the “gripper image”);
correcting the second part pose estimation using a chassis pose estimation, thereby performing multi-stage verification (see at least [0135], [0138], [0144], FIG. 5, FIG. 6, and FIG. 9: “at step 904, the preliminary control path for insertion based on the coordinates from steps 608 and 708 may be created”; “The process of step 706 allows the controller, at step 708 to determine positional and rotational coordinates of the seal within the gripper”; “The process of step 606 allows the controller, at step 608, also utilizing the laser plane discussed above, to determine positional and rotational coordinates of the slot and/or the element relative to the robotic arm”);
inserting the part into the chassis, wherein the multi-stage verification ensures that a high value part is not damaged in the assembly (see at least [0131] and FIG. 5: “At step 522, the controller causes a motion of the arm and an operation of the gripper to insert the seal into the slot through the use of control signals generated according to the insertion path from step 520”).
Regarding Claim 2, Lizotte discloses Claim 1. Furthermore, Lizotte discloses further comprising: applying a final position correction by verifying a position of a fixed region of interest prior to the inserting (see at least [0126]-[0129], FIG. 5, and FIG. 8: “At step 514, the controller causes motion of the robotic arm and the gripper coupled to the robotic arm to a position near insertion of the seal into the slot, in some examples about 10 mm away”; “At step 516, the controller transmits control signals to a sensor (e.g., the first sensor 204 in FIG. 2C) that cause the sensor to obtain and transmit an image of the gripper, the seal, and the slot to the controller or processor”; “the controller obtains and analyzes the image to obtain, correct, and/or update the x and y position coordinates, as well as the rotational z orientation coordinates of the gripper relative to the slot. This allows the controller to correct the positioning of the gripper relative to the slot before insertion”).
Regarding Claim 3, Lizotte discloses Claim 2. Furthermore, Lizotte discloses wherein the final position correction comprises: locating a region of interest on a board (see at least [0053]: “A carrier 120 containing engine elements 122 having a slot 124 or other openings may be provided. Further, a bin containing seals 136, as shown in FIG. 2A, may be provided within the vicinity of the system 100. The carrier 120 may include trays and other structures capable of holding engine elements 122 within. The seals 136 are elements, structures, or objects that join two other elements together or prevent anything from passing. For example, a seal may prevent a liquid from moving through a slot”; the slot can be the region of interest on a board); using template matching to compute distance between the regions of interest (see at least [0141] and FIG. 8: compared to CAD); and verifying that the distance is below a threshold (see at least [0130]-[0131] and FIG. 5: “At step 520, discussed in more detail below with reference to FIG. 9, the controller finalizes and/or forms the insertion path based on the coordinates from steps 506, 512, and 518. In some embodiments, the controller may update the preliminary control path for insertion using the corrected coordinates to form the insertion path”; “At step 522, the controller causes a motion of the arm and an operation of the gripper to insert the seal into the slot through the use of control signals generated according to the insertion path from step 520”; the distance is below the threshold or the path would be adjusted to bring within the threshold).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizotte in view of IEEE Publication High-Precision Pose Estimation Method of the 3C Parts by Combining 2D and 3D Vision for Robotic Grasping in Assembly Applications (Zhang et al., hereinafter, Zhang).
Regarding Claim 4, Lizotte discloses Claim 1. Furthermore, Lizotte discloses that the images may be point cloud data (see at least [0037]). Lizotte does not explicitly disclose wherein the calculating the first part pose estimation comprises: generating a point cloud of the part, using a first sensor; matching the point cloud to a template of the part; and computing subpart locations based on the matching.
Zhang, in the same field of robot controls, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the calculating the first part pose estimation comprises: generating a point cloud of the part, using a first sensor; matching the point cloud to a template of the part; and computing subpart locations based on the matching (see at least Fig. 2, Fig. 6, and Fig. 7: pose is estimated based on point cloud of the part and model point cloud matching with PCA+ICP).
Substituting the specifically-defined, known pose estimating prior to picking of Zhang with the invention of Lizotte would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of using a known technique for pose estimation of a part to be picked that has high accuracy (see at least Zhang section V conclusions on page 553).
Regarding Claim 5, the Lizotte and Zhang combination teaches Claim 4. Furthermore, Zhang further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 4) further comprising: defining a working plane, the working plane defining a bottom of the subpart locations; and removing points in the point cloud below the working plane, prior to the computing (see at least Fig. 6: preprocessing and segmenting to remove points results in the red point cloud).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizotte in view of Zhang in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0051658 (Hwang et al., hereinafter, Hwang).
Regarding Claim 6, the Lizotte and Zhang combination teaches Claim 5. Zhang further teaches using ICP but does not explicitly teach clustering. Clustering is well-known in the art, Hwang, in the same field of processing point clouds for robotic tasks, and therefore analogous art, teaches clustering the point cloud into distinct clusters (see at least [0003]: “a method of separating an object in a three dimension point cloud, and more particularly to a method of separating an object in a three dimension point cloud in which points of an individual object in a three dimension point cloud are clustered for a robot to recognize the object”).
Combining the clustering of Hwang to the Zhang and Lizotte combining would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of incorporating preprocessing that can improve robot accuracy in recognizing objects (see at least [0006]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that matching the subpart locations based on the template of the part and the clusters is obvious in view of the combination since the clusters are part of the preprocessed point clouds in the combination and Zhang teaches matching preprocessed point clouds to a template.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lizotte in view of arXiv PrePrint Learning Markerless Robot-Depth Camera Calibration and End-Effector Pose Estimation (Sefercik and Akgun, hereinafter, Sefercik).
Regarding Claim 7, Lizotte discloses Claim 1. Lizotte does not explicitly disclose further comprising performing a calibration verification to verify that sensors remain calibrated, by: comparing a scan of a static portion of the robot arm to a robot template; computing a transformation between the robot template and the scan; and determining that the transformation is identity, to verify the calibration.
Sefercik, in the same field of robotic controls, and therefore analogous art, teaches performing a calibration verification to verify that sensors remain calibrated, by: comparing a scan of a static portion of the robot arm to a robot template; computing a transformation between the robot template and the scan (see at least section 3.5 on page 5, section 3.6 on page 5, and section 4.2 on page 6: a point cloud is obtained of the robot posed and then the robot is calibrated using ICP to compare to CAD model of robot converted to a point cloud).
Combining the calibration of Sefercik with Lizotte, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, as Lizotte requires the robot to be calibrated (see at least Lizotte [0104]) but did not provide a specific method and one of ordinary skill in the art would look for a known technique to apply to complete the calibration required of Lizotte. The teaching of Sefercik has the specific advantage of not requiring adding costly and/or noisy markers to the robot as is done by many traditional systems (see at least Sefercik section 1 Introduction on page 1).
Sefercik discloses determining the errors and evaluating performance based on those errors (see at least section 4.1 Collected Data on page 6 and section 4.2 Single Frame Post Prediction and Multi-Frame Calibration on page 6-7), so determining that the transformation is identity, to verify the calibration would have been obvious, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). There is no unexpected result of requiring the transformation to be identity and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to be the ideal value (i.e., a perfect match) would find this threshold obvious.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited: U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0122043 which teaches fitting parts into slots.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights