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 .
Response to Arguments
In the non-final office action filed on 06/17/2026 the examiner erroneously stated that the applicant’s election was made without traverse. Applicant’s arguments with traverse are addressed below in the Election/Restriction section. Note that in the non-final office action filed on 06/17/2026 the examiner also erroneously filled out Section 5a of the Office Action Summary. This has been corrected in the most current Office Action Summary with the indication of claims 12-18 as withdrawn. The changes are consistent with the body of the non-final office action in which claims 1-11, 19, and 20 were indicated as elected and subsequently rejected with prior art. Claims 12-18 were not indicated as elected claims, nor were the claims examiner in light of the prior art. Therefore, the action clearly indicates examiner intended the withdraw claims 12-18.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-16, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the rejections of
claims 1-20 are directed towards the election of species, the indefiniteness of the term “FRAME algorithm”, and the reasoning to withdraw the §103 rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed here, with all changes applied to the appropriate sections below.
In regards to the indefiniteness of the term “FRAME algorithm” in claim 2, applicant states that the amended claim language “refer to a well-known function that computes a Cartesian coordinate frame from three non-collinear points, which is a standard operation in robot programming languages (e.g., FANUC's FRAME function).” Examiner agrees that FRAME(P1,P2,P3) refers to a well-known function which is standard in robot programming languages. Accordingly, examiner withdraws the § 112(b) rejection.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments over the rejection of claim 1, examiner believes the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections of claim 1 is maintained. The applicant argues that the robot in Mao does not position itself relative to the center of the calibration object. It is understood that the robot of Mao has a position, the calibration object has a center, and the robot position is relative to the center of the calibration object. How a first position is recorded, whether by visual acquisition or joint encoders, is not claimed, only that a first position is recorded. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and Mao discloses part (a) of claim 1.
In regards to part (b) of claim 1, the examiner agrees with the applicant that Mao dose not teach picking up and moving the calibration object to a second location and recording the position of the second location. Moa merely teaches 1) picking up and moving objects, and 2) recording the position of the second location. One skilled in the art of robotic control would have known to use the robot to move the calibration object to the second position. The §103 rejection of claim 1 has been updated below to make this distinction clearer.
In regards to part (c) of claim 1, the examiner agrees with the applicant that Mao does not teach calculating a third position value using the first and second position values. This feature is taught by Andersson. In response to applicant's argument that the characterization of Mao is conflated, it should be noted that how a position is recorded, whether by visual acquisition or joint encoders, is not claimed, only that positions are recorded. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and Mao in view of Andersson discloses part (c) of claim 1.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments pertaining to what Andersson discloses, the examiner agrees that Andersson does not disclose (a) Grasping and moving a calibration object. Mao discloses (a) Grasping and moving a calibration object. Additionally, the examiner agrees that Andersson does not calculate P3 from P1 and P2. Andersson calculates C1 from P1 and P2 (as detailed in 0079), thus disclosing (b) Calculating a third position value using first and second position values. In response to applicant's argument that the Andersson fails to show (c) Using dimensions of a calibration object to calculate the reference frame, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an offset to translate the calculated frame to a final reference frame) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that rationale to combine Mao and Andersson is deficient, the examiner maintains the stance that Mao and Andersson both pertain to recording end effector positions to calibrate robotic arms within a given workspace. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control would have known to combine them. The applicant’s argument that the workpieces of Mao and Andersson are different is unpersuasive as those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control know that the workpiece does not contribute to the calibration of the robotic arm. In response to applicant's arguments i and iii, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., using a single calibration object and an offset to translate the calculated frame to a final reference frame) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In regards to applicant’s arguments ii, examiner believes this is addressed by Andersson’s calculation of C1.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments over the rejection of claims 4-10, examiner believes the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections of claims 4-10 are maintained. In light of the clarification of the rejection of claim 1 by Mao in view of Andersson, the addition of Lager discloses the claims in question. In regards to claim 8, the examiner maintains the stance that in regards to the calibration of a robotic arm, those of ordinary skill in the art view stationary platforms as analogous structures.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments over the rejection of claim 11, examiner believes the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections of claim 11 is maintained. In light of the clarification of the rejection of claim 1 by Mao in view of Andersson, the addition of Turpin discloses the claim in question.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments over the rejection of claim 19, examiner believes the applicant’s arguments i-ii are unpersuasive and the rejections of claim 19 is maintained. In light of the clarification of the rejection of claim 1 by Mao in view of Andersson, examiner believes that Andersson discloses (i) calculating a third position value from first and second position values by detailing the calculations of C1 in 0079. Andersson discloses (ii) calculating the reference frame using the intermediate frame and the dimensions of the gripper by detailing spherical shape of the calibration tool center point in 0076. This rationale is detailed in the rejection of claim 19 below.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments over the rejection of claim 20, examiner believes the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections of claim 20 is maintained. Examiner agrees that the rejection of claim 20 in a similar manner as to the rejection of claim 1 is without adequate factual support for the distinct claim limitations of Claim 20. A more detailed rejection of claim 20 by Mao in view of Andersson is provided below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 20, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Specis I in the reply filed on May 20, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious search and/or examination burdern. This is not found persuasive because each species would requires different search terms and prior art analysis due to the difference in “calculating a third position value using the first and second position values” (claim 1; Species I) and “recording a third position value that is in space relative to the conveyor” (claim 12; Species II). In addition to the difference in “calculating” and “recording” the third position value, the third position value is also given different conditions for each species that are patentably distinct. Furthermore, examiner notes that the specification only provides antecedent basis support for calculating the third position value using the first and second position values. The specification does not mention recording the third position value.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 robotic arm to pick up a pick object 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 does not specifically disclose the center of the calibration object, but it is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that the calibration object has a center, and the position of the robot is relative to that center. 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 details of how the calibration object is placed at the second location. It would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the robot to move the calibration object to the second location when employing the calibration method disclosed by Mao.
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). Andersson discloses calculating a third position value using the measured first and second positions by specifying “The centre points C1, C2 of the virtual discs 27a, 27c are calculated based on the determined positions of the calibration objects 24a, 24c “ (0079). 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). Andersson discloses incorporating the dimensions of the calibration object into the calculation of the reference frame by detailing “The direction of the rotational axis of the positioner is determined as an axis going through the centre points C1, C2 of the virtual discs” (0079). 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 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 discloses
A method for calculating a reference frame including X, Y and Z axes that allows a robot to pick up a pick object using a gripper, said gripper having a known orientation, 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 robotic arm to pick up a pick object with a tool that grasps and discloses the tool having a known orientation by detailing “Wherein, the known poses are: ToolInBasePose” (pg6). Mao 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 does not specifically disclose the center of the calibration object, but it is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control that the calibration object has a center, and the position of the robot is relative to that center. 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 is silent on the use of an intermediate frame when calculating the final reference frame. However, Andersson discloses
calculating an intermediate frame including X, Y and Z axes using the first position value and the orientation of the gripper; and
calculating the reference frame using the intermediate frame.
Andersson pertains to the use of a calibration tool to calculate the reference frames between a robot and the workpieces on a conveyer. Andersson discloses using the known orientation of the tool when calculating reference frames by detailing “The robot 1 is provided with a calibration tool 26 held by the robot. In this example the tip of the calibration tool is a ball with a spherical shape. The tool centre point (TCP) of the calibration tool is determined according to any known method” (0076). Anderson discloses calculating an intermediate frame with one measured point and the known orientation of a tool 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” (0080). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robot control to use the intermediate frame technique of Andersson to provide the details of the intermediate steps when calibrating the robot with the calibration technique of Mao.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Mao in view of Andersson, further in view of Automated Manufacturing Systems Technology (Frames in Robotics - User Frames (UFRAME). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj4bbQHKIEY hereinafter “AMST”).
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 calculating a frame from the first, second, and third position values according to FRAME (P1, P2, P3), wherein P1 is the first position value, P2 is the second position value, and P3 is the third position value. Andersson discloses calculating the intermediate frame in 0080, but is silent on the specific method used. FRAME(P1,P2,P3) is a well-known function which is standard in robot programming languages (such as those used by ABB, KUKA, and FANUC). In a demonstration video posted on YouTube, AMST discloses defining a robotic coordinate frame with three points according to FANUC’s version of FRAME(P1,P2,P3). At 14:19 the operator defines and inputs P1, at 15:28 the operator defines and inputs P2, at 16:50 the operator defines and inputs P3 resulting in a newly calculated reference frame. From 16:50 onward the robotic arm operates in the new reference frame. Therefore, it would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the well-known FRAME(P1,P2,P3) as demonstrated by AMST to provide the specific method to calculate the intermediate frame as disclosed by Andersson.
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 as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights