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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-25 were originally filed on 06/19/2025 and claimed priority on EP23275002.6 and GB2300230.6, which were both filed on 01/06/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 07/01/2025, 01/29/2026, and 06/10/2026 have been considered. An initialed copy of each Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not on a separate sheet and includes other parts of the application or other material. 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
Claims 2-8, 10-11, 16-17, and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claims 2 and 3, “the work position” should be “the working position”, as that was the term recited in claim 1.
For claim 3, “a distance between the tool engagement coupler and the work position” should be “the distance between the tool engagement coupler and the working position” as the distance was already recited in claim 2.
For claim 5, “only one of the axis of motion” should be “only one of the axes of motion”.
For claim 10, “movement of the arm” should be “movement of the robotic arm”.
For claim 16, “A tool engagement coupler” should be “The tool engagement coupler”.
For claim 17, “A locator” should be “The locator”.
For claim 21, “the at least one predetermined impedance modes” should be “the plurality of predetermined impedance modes”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cochrane et al (US 20220331975 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Cochrane)
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, Cochrane teaches a tool engagement coupling system configured to engage a tool engagement coupler with a locator located relative to a workpiece at a working position of a tool (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0025-0028 and Figure 1, the robotic drill system is interpreted as the tool engagement coupling system; the self-centering device 41 is interpreted as the tool engagement coupler; the drill template 23 is interpreted as the locator), the system comprising:
a method of engaging a tool engagement coupler with a locator located relative to a workpiece at a working position of a tool (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0025-0028 and Figures 1-2f, the self-centering device 41 is interpreted as the tool engagement coupler; the drill template 23 is interpreted as the locator), the method comprising:
a robotic arm linked to the tool engagement coupler and moveable in multiple axes of motion relative to the workpiece to position the tool engagement coupler at the working position via the locator (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0027-0028, 0031, 0055, and Figure 1, the robotic arm moves in multiple axes to position the self-centering device/tool engagement coupler 41 at the working position via the locator/drill template 23);
wherein the robotic arm is configured to operate in at least one impedance mode selected from a plurality of predetermined impedance modes, each of which is configured to give rise to a predetermined stiffness in one or more of the axes of motion of the tool engagement coupler/robotic arm (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0057-0058, the drive mode and freedrive mode are interpreted as impedance modes, wherein the freedrive mode has a lower stiffness than the drive mode).
Regarding Claim 12, Cochrane teaches the tool engagement coupling system includes the tool engagement coupler (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0025-0028 and Figure 1, the self-centering device 41 is interpreted as the tool engagement coupler).
Regarding Claim 15, Cochrane teaches a sensor configured for determining an impedance applied to the tool engagement coupler, and thereby to select one or more of the impedance modes (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0061, 0064, and 0108, the sensor detects a force/impedance applied to the tool head, which includes the tool engagement coupler, and the impedance mode is switched to the freedrive mode based on the detected force/impedance indicating binding).
Regarding Claim 16, Cochrane teaches a tool engagement coupler configured for use in the tool engagement coupling system of claim 1 (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0025-0028 and Figure 1, the self-centering device 41 is interpreted as the tool engagement coupler).
Regarding Claim 17, Cochrane teaches a locator configured for use in the tool engagement coupling system of claim 1 (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0025-0028 and Figure 1, the drill template 23 is interpreted as the locator).
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.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochrane in view of Khurana et al (US 20220218422 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Khurana)
Regarding Claims 2-3 and 19, Cochrane teaches the system is configured to select the at least one impedance mode based upon at least one task that the system is required to undertake (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0057-0059, the mode is selected based on the task to be executed (e.g. insertion, retraction, alignment)).
Cochrane fails to disclose select the at least one impedance mode based upon... a distance between the tool engagement coupler and the work position,
wherein the system is configured to select the at least one impedance mode according to a comparison of a distance between the tool engagement coupler and the work position with a plurality of distance ranges in each of which the robotic arm operates in a different one or more of the predetermined impedance modes.
However, Cochrane teaches the tool engagement coupler is connected to the tool (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0028 and Figure 1), and Khurana teaches select the at least one impedance mode based upon... a distance between the tool and the working position (See at least Khurana Paragraphs 0161-0162, the stiffness/impedance mode is based on the distance between the tool and the target state/work position),
wherein the system is configured to select the at least one impedance mode according to a comparison of a distance between the tool and the work position with a plurality of distance ranges in each of which the robotic arm operates in a different one or more of the predetermined impedance modes (See at least Khurana Paragraphs 0161-0162, the stiffness/impedance mode is selected by comparing the distance between the tool and work position/target state with a plurality of distances that have different stiffness values/impedance modes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Cochrane with Khurana to select the at least one impedance mode according to a comparison of a distance between the tool engagement coupler and the work position with a plurality of distance ranges in each of which the robotic arm operates in a different one or more of the predetermined impedance modes. This modification, as taught by Khurana, would allow the system to generate guide constraints the guide the tool to the target state/working position by adjusting the stiffness based on the distance between the current state and target state/working position (See at least Khurana Paragraphs 0157 and 0161-0162), thus, improving the accuracy of the position of the tool.
Regarding Claims 6-7, modified Cochrane teaches a second predetermined impedance mode of the plurality of predetermined impedance modes is a compliant mode, and wherein when the complaint mode is selected the robotic arm is moveable in a plurality of the axes of motion (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0055, and 0058, the freedrive mode is interpreted as the compliant mode, wherein the robot is freely translated and rotated along the plurality of axes),
wherein when the compliant mode is selected the robotic arm is moveable in X and Y axes and in yaw, pitch and roll (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0055, and 0058, the freedrive mode is interpreted as the compliant mode wherein the robot is freely translated along x and y axes and rotated around the x, y, and z axis, which corresponds to yaw, pitch, and roll).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Cochrane teaches the system is configured to select successive ones of the plurality of predetermined impedance modes (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0084-0085, and 0088, the mode is switched from the drive mode to the freedrive mode, which is interpreted as selecting successive ones of the impedance modes).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Cochrane teaches the system is configured to operate in successive ones of the predetermined impedance modes (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0084-0085, and 0088, the mode is switched from the drive mode to the freedrive mode, which is interpreted as operating in successive ones of the impedance modes).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochrane in view of Khurana, and in further view of Park (US 20190217480 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Park)
Regarding Claims 4-5, modified Cochrane fails to disclose a first predetermined impedance mode of the plurality of predetermined impedance modes is a stiff mode, and wherein when the stiff mode is selected, the robotic arm is moveable only in a specified one or more of the axes of motion,
wherein when the stiff mode is selected, the robotic arm is moveable in only one of the axis of motion.
However, Park teaches a first predetermined impedance mode of the plurality of predetermined impedance modes is a stiff mode, and wherein when the stiff mode is selected, the robotic arm is moveable only in a specified one or more of the axes of motion (See at least Park Paragraphs 0048, 0090, and Figure 8a, the impedance control only allows movement of the robot along one axis, which is interpreted as a stiff mode),
wherein when the stiff mode is selected, the robotic arm is moveable in only one of the axis of motion (See at least Park Paragraphs 0048, 0090, and Figure 8a, the impedance control only allows movement of the robot along one axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Cochrane with Park to have the plurality of predetermined impedance modes include a stiff mode where the robotic arm is moveable in only one of the axes of motion. This modification, as taught by Park, would ensure that the robotic arm only moves in the desired direction (See at least Park Paragraphs 0048, 0090, and Figure 8a), thus, improving the accuracy of position control for the robotic arm.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochrane in view of Verdi et al (US 20210138642 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Verdi)
Regarding Claims 9-10, Cochrane fails to disclose the system is configured to select the at least one impedance mode according to an impedance that is applied to the tool engagement coupler due to an effective weight experienced at the tool engagement coupler,
wherein the effective weight is due to movement of the arm and further due to a weight that is exerted on the tool engagement coupler by the robotic arm and by an associated load that is supported by the robotic arm.
However, Cochrane teaches the tool engagement coupler is connected to the tool (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0028 and Figure 1), and Verdi teaches the system is configured to select the at least one impedance mode according to an impedance that is applied to the tool due to an effective weight experienced at the tool (See at least Verdi Paragraphs 0010, 0016, and 0136, the impedance parameters/mode is selected to reduce the apparent end effector mass, which is interpreted as an effective weight experienced),
wherein the effective weight is due to movement of the arm and further due to a weight that is exerted on the tool by the robotic arm and by an associated load that is supported by the robotic arm (See at least Verdi Paragraphs 0010, 0016, 0073-0074, 0078, 0136, and Figures 1a-1b, the weight is due to the movement of the robot arm, the forces/weight exerted on the end effector by the actuators of the robot arm, and the mass/load that is supported by the robot arm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Cochrane with Verdi to select the at least one impedance mode according to an impedance that is applied to the tool engagement coupler due to an effective weight experienced at the tool engagement coupler. This modification, as taught by Verdi, would reduce the apparent mass of the tool engagement coupler, which would reduce the actuator effort required to support weight against gravity, and, in turn, may improve efficiency and extend endurance (e.g. battery life) (See at least Verdi Paragraphs 0010, and 0136).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Cochrane teaches the associated load comprises a connector extending between the system and at least one of the tool engagement coupler, the tool, and at least one joint of the robotic arm (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0027-0028 and Figure 1, the self-centering device 41 is interpreted as the connector extending between the system and the tool/end effector).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochrane in view of Schaff Deleury et al (US 4740117 A) (Hereinafter referred to as Schaff Deleury)
Regarding Claims 13-14, Cochrane fails to disclose the tool engagement coupler includes an engagement member having a first predetermined shape that is adapted to engage with a second predetermined shape of the locator,
wherein the tool engagement coupler is adapted to be moved by the robotic arm based on a decreasing level of spatial tolerance as the tool engagement coupler approaches the locator, said level of spatial intolerance being based at least in part on the first predetermined shape and the second predetermined shape.
However, Schaff Deleury teaches the tool engagement coupler includes an engagement member having a first predetermined shape that is adapted to engage with a second predetermined shape of the locator (See at least Schaff Deleury Abstract, Column 3 line 55-Column 4 line 19 and Figures 5-8, the machining unit/tool engagement coupler includes hooking members 27 having a first predetermined shape that engage a second predetermined shape 14 of the locator/bushing),
wherein the tool engagement coupler is adapted to be moved by the robotic arm based on a decreasing level of spatial tolerance as the tool engagement coupler approaches the locator, said level of spatial intolerance being based at least in part on the first predetermined shape and the second predetermined shape (See at least Schaff Deleury Abstract, Column 3 line 55-Column 4 line 19 and Figures 5-8, the machining unit/tool engagement coupler is moved by the robot based on a decreasing level of spatial tolerance based on the first predetermined shape 27 engaging the second predetermined shape 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Cochrane with Schaff Deleury to have the tool engagement coupler include an engagement member having a first predetermined shape that is adapted to engage with a second predetermined shape of the locator. This modification, as taught by Schaff Deleury, would lock the tool engagement coupler in place after engaging the locator (See at least Schaff Deleury Abstract, Column 3 line 65-Column 4 line 19 and Figures 5-8), thus, increasing the accuracy and stability of the position of the tool engagement coupler.
Claims 20 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochrane in view of Hardi et al (US 20240286292 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Hardi)
Regarding Claim 20, Cochrane teaches the method further comprises using an algorithm to record a current position of the tool engagement coupler (See at least Cochrane Paragraph 0069 and 0076-0077, the code is interpreted as the algorithm, which is executed to detect the current position of the tool head, which includes the tool engagement coupler).
Cochrane fails to disclose using the algorithm to improve an accuracy of indexing between the locator and subsequent locators and/or subsequent holes in a jig.
However, Hardi teaches improve an accuracy of indexing between the locator and subsequent locators and/or subsequent holes in a jig (See at least Hardi Paragraphs 0006-0007, 0016, 0019-0020, 0067-0068 and Figure 1, the position of the probe is recorded and used to determine the center coordinate of each hole/locator, which is interpreted as improving an accuracy of indexing between the locator/hole and subsequent locators/holes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Cochrane with Hardi to improve an accuracy of indexing between the locator and subsequent locators and/or subsequent holes in a jig. This modification, as taught by Cochrane, would improve the machining process by balancing accuracy and speed, which would reduce assembly times while maintaining a high degree of accuracy (at least Hardi Paragraph 0007).
Regarding Claims 23-24, modified Cochrane teaches a second predetermined impedance mode of the plurality of predetermined impedance modes is a compliant mode, and wherein when the complaint mode is selected the robotic arm is moveable in a plurality of the axes of motion (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0055, and 0058, the freedrive mode is interpreted as the compliant mode, wherein the robot is freely translated and rotated along the plurality of axes),
wherein when the compliant mode is selected the robotic arm is moveable in X and Y axes and in yaw, pitch and roll (See at least Cochrane Paragraphs 0055, and 0058, the freedrive mode is interpreted as the compliant mode wherein the robot is freely translated along x and y axes and rotated around the x, y, and z axis, which corresponds to yaw, pitch, and roll).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochrane in view of Park
Regarding Claims 21-22, Cochrane fails to disclose a first predetermined impedance mode of the at least one predetermined impedance modes is a stiff mode, and wherein when the stiff mode is selected, the robotic arm is moveable only in one or more of the axes of the axes of motion,
wherein when the stiff mode is selected, the robotic arm is moveable in only one of the axes of motion.
However, Park teaches a first predetermined impedance mode of the at least one predetermined impedance modes is a stiff mode, and wherein when the stiff mode is selected, the robotic arm is moveable only in one or more of the axes of the axes of motion (See at least Park Paragraphs 0048, 0090, and Figure 8a, the impedance control only allows movement of the robot along one axis, which is interpreted as a stiff mode),
wherein when the stiff mode is selected, the robotic arm is moveable in only one of the axes of motion (See at least Park Paragraphs 0048, 0090, and Figure 8a, the impedance control only allows movement of the robot along one axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Cochrane with Park to have the plurality of predetermined impedance modes include a stiff mode where the robotic arm is moveable in only one of the axes of motion. This modification, as taught by Park, would ensure that the robotic arm only moves in the desired direction (See at least Park Paragraphs 0048, 0090, and Figure 8a), thus, improving the accuracy of position control for the robotic arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyajima et al (US 20140348603 A1) teaches a drilling apparatus that uses a drilling jig
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights