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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “producing a first workpiece from the plurality of workpieces” in line 8. As written, the word “from” might suggest that the first workpiece is produced by using several other workpieces, while it is actually the examiner’s understanding that the first workpiece is one of the aforementioned plurality of workpieces. It is suggested that “from” be amended to recite --of-- for clarity.
Claim 1 recites a similar limitation in the second-to-last line.
Claim 4 recites a similar limitation in line 2.
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:
Moveable machine element (first and second, e.g. claims 1 and 2) - e.g. a multi-axis machine tool (cutting, milling, drilling, turning, and/or grinding); welding, bending, pressing, additive manufacturing tools (paragraph 76)
Metrology device (e.g. claim 1) - contact or NC-type CMM, laser scanners, probes (paragraph 61)
Automated handling apparatus (e.g. claim 5) - no corresponding structure
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
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 5 and 12 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.
In claim 5, limitation “automated handling apparatus” 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 structure thereof is not discussed). 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.
Claim 12 recites “the second workpiece is inspected using the metrology device event-triggered based on whether or not the plurality of second process parameters exceed predetermined threshold criteria”. The limitation “the second workpiece is inspected using the metrology device” is contingent upon (“event-triggered based on”) the condition of “whether or not the plurality of second process parameters exceed predetermined threshold criteria”. However, the limitation “whether or not” makes it unclear what condition the event is triggered by, i.e. is it triggered by the process parameters exceeding predetermined threshold criteria, or by not exceeding?
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
As noted above, claim limitation “automated handling apparatus” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but 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. Referring to MPEP 2181 IV., a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0299872, cited in IDS).
Claim 1: Wu et al. discloses a method for producing a plurality of workpieces (155) using a manufacturing installation that includes a first manufacturing machine having a first moveable machine element (e.g. a robot 550a or 550b with a cutting, lathe machining, milling machining, or electrical discharge machining tool - paragraph 67), a first machine controller (1, 100) configured to control the first moveable machine element (paragraphs 37, 39), and a metrology device (150, 200 - e.g. an image sensor, camera, or optical sensor - paragraph 39) configured to determine actual characteristics of a produced workpiece (e.g. paragraphs 40-41), the method comprising: obtaining a data set defining desired workpiece characteristics of the plurality of workpieces (model image - Fig. 2b); producing a first workpiece (155) from the plurality of workpieces in a plurality of first successive manufacturing steps (operations - e.g. paragraphs 37, 39) using the first manufacturing machine (e.g. cutting a cross shape therein - paragraph 40), wherein the first machine controller controls the first moveable machine element along a plurality of first movement paths (any arbitrary portions of the robot’s movement during machining - e.g. Fig. 1, paragraph 97) using a plurality of first control commands determined based on the data set (e.g. paragraphs 40-42, the model image representing the target geometry to be formed); repeatedly recording (collecting) a plurality of first process parameters (operations of moving parts - paragraph 37; torque and current values - paragraphs 105-113; see also paragraph 56) during the plurality of first successive manufacturing steps in order to thereby obtain a respective first process parameter sequence for each first process parameter of the plurality of first process parameters (monitoring and storage of data regarding operations of the moving parts of the robots and time periods thereof - e.g. paragraphs 37, 47-51); mapping the plurality of first process parameter sequences onto the plurality of first successive manufacturing steps in order to obtain first sequential mapping data, the first sequential mapping data associating each first control command from the plurality of first control commands with first process parameters recorded at a time when the respective first control command was executed (as cited above - mapping the operations data and time period data for the various movements); inspecting the first workpiece using the metrology device in order to obtain actual first workpiece characteristics (paragraph 40); comparing the actual first workpiece characteristics with the desired workpiece characteristics in order to determine deviations between the actual first workpiece characteristics and the desired workpiece characteristics (paragraph 41; Fig. 2c); determining a plurality of second control commands based on the deviations, at least one of the plurality of first control commands and the data set, and the first sequential mapping data (e.g. altering the data collection in subsequent cycles and/or limiting operation speed based on the above - paragraphs 115 and 121); and producing a second workpiece from the plurality of workpieces using the manufacturing installation and the plurality of second control commands (implied by the changes being applied to subsequent control cycles, i.e. for making subsequent parts 155).
Claim 2: The manufacturing installation includes a second manufacturing machine (two robots 550a, 550b are shown, either being the “second”) having a second moveable machine element (any of the aforementioned tooling) and a second machine controller configured to control the second moveable machine element (any of the controlling elements of the robot, such as servos and drivers thereof - e.g. paragraphs 60-64), and the second workpiece is produced using the second manufacturing machine and the second machine controller (the workpieces are made by both robots - paragraph 40).
Claim 3: The first manufacturing machine (e.g. 550a) is located at a first manufacturing site (its position in Fig. 1) and the second manufacturing machine (e.g. robot 550b) is located at a second manufacturing site remote from the first manufacturing site (its position is remote or distanced from that of 550a, e.g. across conveyor 800), individual process parameter sequences are recorded separately on the first and second manufacturing sites (each robot has moving parts, and the previously cited recording is implicitly for each robot as it can distinguish between the two - e.g. paragraphs 50, 56, and 126), and the plurality of second control commands are determined based on the individual process parameter sequences from both the first and second manufacturing sites (as cited previously, the commands are based on data acquired from both robots and would implicitly be based on this data and tailored to each robot, i.e. dependent on which moving part was found abnormal during mapping).
Claim 5: The inspecting includes transferring the first workpiece from the manufacturing machine to the metrology device (150) using an automated handling apparatus (a conveyor 800, e.g. controlled by the control device - paragraphs 55, 58).
Claim 10: Wu further implies that producing the second workpiece (any subsequent workpiece after the first) includes: recording a plurality of second process parameter sequences during a plurality of second successive manufacturing steps (similarly to as discussed above, but for further data collected and analyzed for the “next time”, e.g. paragraphs 107, 110, 112), selecting a subset of second control commands from the plurality of second control commands at a time when the subset of second control commands has not yet been executed during the plurality of second successive manufacturing steps (broadly, any arbitrary set of commands that the machine would give in manufacturing a second part), modifying the subset of second control commands based on the plurality of second process parameter sequences in order to obtain modified second control commands (e.g. as discussed in paragraph 121), and controlling the moveable machine element using the modified second control commands (Id.).
Claim 11: The examiner notes that the limitation “producing the second workpiece is terminated” is contingent upon the condition “if it is determined that the modified second control commands exceed a predetermined threshold criterium”. However, this step is not required and thus moot if the condition is not met. See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Claim 12: The examiner notes that the limitation “the second workpiece is inspected using the metrology device” is contingent upon (“event-triggered based on”) the condition of whether or not the plurality of second process parameters exceed predetermined threshold criteria. Regardless of which event actually triggers the inspection (see 112(b) rejection above), the limitation is still contingent upon a condition which need not be met, and is moot under such a circumstance. See MPEP 2111.04 II.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Krause et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0208568, cited in IDS).
Claim 4: Wu further discloses producing a third workpiece from the plurality of workpieces (the machine implicitly continuously produces plural workpieces, e.g. paragraph 69; Fig. 1 also shows an incoming blank as first workpiece, a second workpiece in progress at 550a/b, and a third workpiece at camera 150) on either the first manufacturing machine or the second manufacturing machine (machines 550a and 55b are both used as noted above). Wu does not necessarily disclose wherein an individual process decision is made in order to assign the step of producing the third workpiece to either the first manufacturing machine or the second manufacturing machine, and wherein the individual process decision is based on the individual process parameter sequences from both the first and second manufacturing sites. Wu does disclose that a given machine might be limited or stopped based on the recorded data (paragraphs 52, 121).
However, Krause teaches using recorded data to determine which machines from multiple machines are needed to manufacture a product, including based on manufacturing instructions, the model data, and properties of the machines such as divergence from the model, cost, speed (paragraphs 136-138). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made an individual process decision in order to assign the step of producing the third workpiece to either the first manufacturing machine or the second manufacturing machine based on the individual process parameter sequences from both the first and second manufacturing sites in order to have optimized the manufacturing process in light of the machine data (Id.).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Little et al. (U.S. Patent 5,848,115).
Claim 6: Wu et al. compares a scanned image to a model of the workpiece, but does not specifically generate formatted 3D point cloud data representing a plurality of measurement points on the first workpiece, and fitting a CAD representation of the first workpiece into the formatted 3D point cloud data using a best-fit algorithm. However, Little teaches a method of comparing scanned image to a model comprising generating formatted 3D point cloud data (140) representing a plurality of measurement points on a workpiece, and fitting a CAD representation (156) of the workpiece into the formatted 3D point cloud data using a best-fit algorithm (column 6, lines 30-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the inspection and comparison in this manner since it provides time and cost saving advantages over other methods and also provides an accurate, three-dimensional method for making this comparison (column 2, line 66 - column 3, line 13).
Claim 9: Broadly, Wu further discloses partitioning at least one of the 3D point cloud data and the first workpiece into a plurality of workpiece partitions (e.g. positions of the workpiece identified as abnormal), and determining respective second control commands for each of the workpiece partitions separately (the system determines the operations of the moving parts of the robots at the specific positions of abnormality and during the corresponding time period, and determines the aforementioned command changes to specific associated moving parts involved in that operation in part based on this data - paragraphs 48-51, 104, 121).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. and Little et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Salgian et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0005447).
Following from the above, Little et al. further teaches registration of the point cloud data to the model prior to performing the best fit, but does not necessarily do so wherein a workpiece main axis of the first workpiece is estimated, and the formatted 3D point cloud data is pre-aligned prior to the fitting using the workpiece main axis. However, Salgian teaches a similar comparison method wherein a workpiece main axis of the first workpiece is estimated, and the formatted 3D point cloud data is pre-aligned prior to the fitting using the workpiece main axis (paragraph 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the alignment in this manner since it allows for estimation of the angle between a workpiece and main axes and more precise pitch measurements (Id.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. and Little et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Plihal et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0302031).
Wu et al. and Little et al. teach a method substantially as claimed except for wherein a plurality of different inspection plans are assigned to different areas of the formatted 3D point cloud data, and the plurality of different inspection plans are executed in parallel. However, Plihal et al. teaches a workpiece scanning method wherein a plurality of different inspection plans (modes) are assigned to different areas of the scanned object (and thus would be assigned to the scan data, e.g. the point cloud), and the plurality of different inspection plans are executed in parallel (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed a plurality of different inspection plans in parallel in order to have leveraged different scanning parameters (e.g. lighting, wavelength) on the workpiece.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Pettersson et al. (U.S. PGPub 2016/0202691, cited in IDS).
Claim 13: Referring to Wu, the plurality of process parameters include machine element movement parameters (operations of the moving parts of the robots as cited previously) and machine tool parameters (end effectors - paragraph 37; current - paragraph 106). Wu does not disclose wherein the plurality of process parameters also include environmental parameters, workpiece material parameters, and operator interventions. However, Pettersson et al. teaches a similar method including monitoring various parameters (paragraph 114) such as environmental parameters (e.g. room temperature, air humidity, barometric pressure, noise level, brightness) workpiece material parameters (e. g. what kind of steel or aluminum is currently used, which alloy, heat treatment, supplier), and operator interventions (e.g. identity of persons currently working at the production assembly, machine hours since last maintenance or tool change, kind of last maintenance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also recorded these types of parameters in order to have better determined possible correlations between changes in the behavior of the measurement results and the monitored ambient and/or machine parameters (Id.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent 11,806,877) discloses a similar method which either uses process data to generate a predictive model which is compared to an ideal model, where differences are used to adapt a tool path, or takes actual measurements of the part and compares to ideal model and uses the differences to adapt a tool path. Some embodiments combine both. The main embodiment uses a calculation to correct a secondary process on the same part, while some embodiments use the data to feedback/correct a first process for each of different parts.
Aizawa et al. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0066114) describes a similar method wherein a machined workpiece is scanned and compared to a model, and a processor generates deviation information in conjunction with the scanned data and operations information from the tool.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726