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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on 05/20/26 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-11, 19, and 20 as filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “FRAME algorithm” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “a frame can be calculated using the points P1, P2 and P3” while the accepted meaning is “a method to reconstruct signals in Hilbert space.” The known frame algorithms span many disciplines, but are most closely associated with signal processing. Grochenig details an accelerated version of the frame algorithm (K. Grochenig, "Acceleration of the frame algorithm," in IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 3331-3340, Dec. 1993, doi: 10.1109/78.258077) and Johnson introduced a Greedy version of the frame algorithm (Johnson (2025). A Greedy Version of the Frame Algorithm. arXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.18865). Frame algorithms are also known in the field of visual display coding, with Lei et al applying it to codec H.264 (M. Lei and Z. Shu, "Research on fast mode selection and frame algorithm of H.264," 2010 2nd IEEE International Conference on Information and Financial Engineering, Chongqing, China, 2010, pp. 844-847) and Lee et al applying it to LED screens (I. Lee, S. Lee, and D. Shin. " Estimating frame algorithm and system architecture for LED screen," The 12th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), Gangwon, Korea, 2010, pp. 801-805). Furthermore, FRAME may refer to an acronym, with the most common being Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments and French Regional & American Museum Exchange (Google and acronymfinder.com). Therefore, the term FRAME algorithm is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Mao et al (Chinese Patent Application 117621092A hereinafter “Mao”) in view of Andersson (U.S. Patent Application 20110022216 A1 hereinafter “Andersson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Mao discloses
A method for calculating a reference frame including X, Y and Z axes that allows a robot to pick up a pick object, said method comprising
placing a calibration object at a first location;
positioning the robot relative to a center of the calibration object when the calibration object is at the first location;
grasping the calibration object by the robot when the calibration object is at the first location;
recording a first position value identifying the first location
Mao pertains to the calibration of a robot and discloses calculating a reference frame by detailing “calculate the pose relationship between the end effector and the camera” (pg2) and picking and placing objects “acquires the first pose information and records the robotic arm's position when picking up and placing objects” (pg1). Mao specifically discloses the use of a calibration object by detailing “calibration block is placed, and the robot's end effector is moved to grasp the calibration plate” (pg1). Mao specifically discloses recording the first position by detailing “the teaching module acquires the first pose information and records the robotic arm's position when picking up and placing objects” (pg1). Mao further discloses
moving the calibration object from the first location to a second location using the robot;
recording a second position value identifying the second location;
Mao details employing a second calibration location by detailing “Move the robot's robotic arm to the position where the calibration block is placed and move the robot's end effector to the posture of grasping the calibration block, record the posture of the calibration board, robotic arm and end effector during the movement process, and obtain second pose information” (0018).
Mao is silent on the use of an intermediate frame when calculating the final reference frame. However, Andersson discloses
calculating a third position value using the first and second position values;
calculating an intermediate frame including X, Y and Z axes using the first, second and third position values; and
calculating the reference frame using the intermediate frame and dimensions of the calibration object.
Andersson pertains to the use of a calibration tool to calculate the reference frames between a robot and the workpieces on a conveyer (not picking and placing the objects). Anderson specifies the use of a third point to create an intermediate frame by detailing “The x-axis of the temporary coordinate system is calculated as the vector from the centre of the first disc C1 to the first position P1 of the calibration object 24a, as shown in FIG. 3” (0080) and “the third object is programmed with respect to a third object coordinate system xo3, yo3, zo3” (0090). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robot control to use the third point and intermediate frame technique of Andersson to provide the details of the intermediate steps when calibrating the robot with the calibration object of Mao.
Regarding Claim 2, Mao in view of Andersson, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Andersson further discloses wherein calculating an intermediate frame includes using a FRAME algorithm. As addressed with the 112(b) rejection of claim 2 above, “a FRAME algorithm” is an undefined algorithm. Andersson discloses the use of known algorithms to calculate the intermediate frame in 0080.
Regarding Claim 3, Mao in view of Andersson, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Andersson further discloses in figure 3 wherein calculating an intermediate frame includes using a fourth position value (P4).
Regarding Claim 20, Mao in view of Andersson, discloses all the limitations of claim 20 in a similar manner as to the rejection of claim 1, as the robots of Lager and Mao disclose the use of a gripper.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Andersson, further in view of Lager et al. (US Patent Application 20200164518 A1 hereinafter “Lager”).
Regarding Claim 4, Mao in view of Andersson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the inclusion of a conveyer belt. However, Lager discloses in figure 1b wherein the first location (Xsen) is a pick location on a conveyor (14) where the robot (12) picks up the pick object, the second location (Xcon) is a location upstream of the pick location on the conveyor and the third position (Xtool) value is in space relative to the conveyor. Lager pertains to the calibration of a robotic gripper with a conveyer belt. Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to apply the calibration method of Mao and Andersson to provide a redundant calibration method to the conveyer belt of Lager.
Regarding Claim 5, Mao in view of Andersson, further in view of Lager, discloses all the limitations of claim 4, and Mao further discloses wherein the calibration object is a calibration box and the dimensions are a width, length and height of the calibration box by detailing “the position where the calibration block is placed and move the robot's end effector to the posture of grasping the calibration block” (0059). Additionally, it is known to those of ordinary skill that boxes and blocks possess the dimensions of width, length, and height.
Regarding Claim 6, Mao in view of Andersson, further in view of Lager, discloses all the limitations of claim 4, and Lager further discloses in figure 1a-5b wherein the reference frame (Xcon) is at a front right corner or a front left corner of the conveyor.
Regarding Claim 7, Mao in view of Andersson, further in view of Lager, discloses all the limitations of claim 4, and Andersson further discloses wherein calculating an intermediate frame includes compensating for a tilt of the conveyor. As detailed in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above, Andersson calculates an intermediate frame in 0080. Andersson further discloses that this calculation includes the angle of the positioner/conveyer by detailing “the direction of the rotational axis of the positioner is determined based on determined positions for at least three different angles of the axis of the positioner” (0031).
Regarding Claim 8, Mao in view of Andersson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the inclusion of a pallet. However, Lager discloses in figures 1a-5b wherein the first location is a corner of a pallet, the second location is another corner of the pallet and the third position value is at yet another corner of the pallet. It is understood to those of ordinary skill in the art that for the purposes of calibrating a pick and place robot, a conveyer with a belt speed of zero is analogous to a pallet. Additionally, the calibration technique of Lager is predicated on the “advantage that the sensor 24 can be placed at any suitable location where it can “see” both the conveyor member 18 and the robot 12” (0076). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose 3 of the 4 corners of a pallet as the suitable locations when calibrating the robot of Lager with the calibration technique of Mao and Andersson.
Regarding Claim 9, Mao in view of Andersson, further in view of Lager, discloses all the limitations of claim 8, and Mao further discloses wherein the calibration object is a calibration box and the dimensions are a width, length and height of the calibration box by detailing “the position where the calibration block is placed and move the robot's end effector to the posture of grasping the calibration block” (0059). Additionally, it is known to those of ordinary skill that boxes and blocks possess the dimensions of width, length, and height.
Regarding Claim 10, Mao in view of Andersson, further in view of Lager, discloses all the limitations of claim 8, and Andersson further discloses wherein calculating an intermediate frame includes compensating for a tilt of the conveyor. As detailed in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above, Andersson calculates an intermediate frame in 0080. Andersson further discloses that this calculation includes the angle of the positioner/conveyer by detailing “the direction of the rotational axis of the positioner is determined based on determined positions for at least three different angles of the axis of the positioner” (0031).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Andersson and Lager, further in view of Turpin et al. (US Patent Application 20190016543 A1 hereinafter “Turpin”).
Regarding Claim 11, Mao in view of Andersson discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Lager further teaches obtaining the 3D data of the reference frames by detailing “The robot system 10 further comprises a sensor 24. The sensor 24 is a non-contact sensor and may for example be constituted by a 2D or 3D vision sensor (e.g. camera)” (0047) but is silent on how the 3D data is displayed. However, Turpin discloses displaying the reference frame and the calibration object relative to the robot on a 3D display. Turpin pertains to a method for building a pallet load with a pick and place robot and discloses displaying 3D images by detailing “The at least one three-dimensional, time of flight, camera 310C of the vision system 310 is disposed on one or more of the frame 300F and the robot(s) 14 so as to generate three-dimensional imaging (e.g., 3D images” (0056). Therefore it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the 3D images of Turpin to display the 3D data obtained by Lager when calculating the reference frames to calibrate a pick and place robot.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lager in view Andersson.
Regarding Claim 19, Lager discloses
A method for calculating a reference frame including X, Y and Z axes that allows a robot to pick up an object, said robot including a gripper having known dimensions, said method comprising:
Lager pertains to a method of calibrating a robot with a conveyer and details “The tool coordinate system Xtool is a Cartesian coordinate system having its origin at a tool 22 (here exemplified as a vacuum gripper with a single suction cup) of the robot 12” (0045). It is understood to those of ordinary skill in the art that a gripper of known dimensions that does not perform any gripping functions is simply a calibration tool. Lager fails to teach the use of a calibration tool (Lager uses a calibration sensor). However, Andersson teaches the use of a calibration tool and discloses in Figure 3 and 0079
positioning the gripper at a first location;
recording a first position value identifying the first location (P1);
moving the gripper from the first location to a second location;
recording a second position value identifying the second location (P2);
calculating a third position value using the first and second position values (C1);
Andersson further details the method of using a temporary coordinate system to determine the reference frame in 0080, which as rejected in claims 1 and 3 above, discloses
calculating an intermediate frame including X, Y and Z axes using the first, second and third position values; and
calculating the reference frame using the intermediate frame and the dimensions of the gripper.
Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robot control to use the calibration tool of Andersson instead of the calibration sensor of Lager when calibrating a robot with a conveyer. It would also have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robot control to use the third point and intermediate frame technique of Andersson to provide the details of the intermediate steps when calibrating the robot with conveyer of Lager with the calibration tool of Andersson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights