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 .
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 1-16 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, the step of “acquiring a first set of reachable posture data of a tool model by moving the tool model around a first portion of a workpiece in a reachable area of the robot, the tool model being held and moved by a user without being held by the robot” is unclear. The term "reachable posture data" has no established technical meaning in the present context and does not specify what constitutes a "posture" of a tool model (e.g. position, orientation, joint configuration). Furthermore, the metes and bounds of the term “reachable” are unclear as this could be evaluated as a term of degree, especially given that it is not clear which entity is determining the reachability between the robot, user, and tool model.
Regarding all independent claims 1, 7, 11, and 12, the scope of “tool model” and “real tool” is unclear. For instance, is the tool model a virtual representation of a tool, or an actual physical device, or a third option? Is the “real tool” just the end effector of the robot, or is the robot using another tool? Why is the designation of “real” necessary, is it to differentiate between a virtual tool?
Regarding claim 2, the step of "acquiring the reachable posture data based on the reachability of the posture data” is unclear because it does not specify which means/entity should acquire said data.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear at which stage the acquisition of movement data of the workpiece is carried out. In other words, it is unclear how said step of claim 3 should be incorporated in the method steps of claim 1, to which claim 3 refers.
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 16, it is unclear which kind of "alignment" is to be carried out and the metes and bounds of the claimed “time domain” limits the reachable posture.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites "segmenting the posture data into a plurality of segments, based on a robot workspace of the robot and a position relationship between the robot and the workpiece”, it is unclear how the segmentation is to be carried out. In particular, the mere indication of the robot workspace and the position relationship between the robot and the workpiece as a basis for segmentation does not establish any clear criterion or rule according to which the posture data are to be divided into segments.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “"the posture data of the tool model and the three-dimensional model of the workpiece are aligned with each other in spatial domain" is unclear. The limitation “spatial domain” is newly recited here, so the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, this limitation is only very briefly mentioned in the instant specification and does not appear to give sufficient explanation to allow a POSITA to understand the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 13-16 depend from the rejected claims 1, 7, 11, and 12 and are thus rejected under the same rationale, and any claims not specifically mentioned comprising the indefinite language should also be considered rejected under 35 USC 112 for the same reasons. Accordingly, all claims are rejected under prior art below as best their scope is presently understood.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107309882 A (UNIV QINGDAO TECHNOLOGICAL). It is noted the instant rejection is generally the same as that set forth in the ISR for PCT/CN2022/135720 via the provided University of Qingdao reference).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 11, and 12, as best understood, Qingdao teaches for programing an industrial robot, comprising:
acquiring a first set of reachable posture data of a tool model (hand held teaching tool 11) by moving the tool model around a first portion of a workpiece (operated member 50) in a reachable area of the robot (physical robot 31), the tool model being held and moved by a user (teaching staff 60) without being held by the robot (see at least page 2 of the applicant provided translated reference, and figs. 1-2);
acquiring a second set of reachable posture data of the tool model by moving the tool model around the second portion of the workpiece (see again page 2 at step 20 which teaches the teaching staff 60 moves the hand held teaching tool and determining posture data at various positions, and at least figures 1-2); and
generating, at least based on the first set of reachable posture data, and the second set of reachable posture data, a first executable code which is to be executed by the robot to process the workpiece via a real tool held by the robot (via the end effector of the robot), (code is generated per at least step 40 on page 2 and 3 and step 33 on page 3, and beneficial effect number 4 on page 4).
However, as best as the claims can be understood, Qingdao does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to that the first portion of the workpiece has been processed by the tool model, causing the tool model to emit a control signal to move the workpiece such that a second portion of the workpiece is within the reachable area of the robot; and a second executable code which is to be executed to move the workpiece when the robot processes the workpiece via the real tool. The examiner agrees with the conclusion in the ISR that it would have at least been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide movement of the workpiece in order to process multiple sides of the workpiece in order to that since only two general approaches are available: either moving the robot closer to the workpiece or moving the workpiece relative to the robot. Since the robot disclosed in Qingdao is fixed, only the second approach is feasible, to move the workpiece. This includes, in particular, rotating the workpiece (operated member 50 is already manipulated during steps 20 and 30 of Qingdao) such that the surface to be processed becomes accessible to the robot, in order to ably manipulate any parts of the operated member 50 as is necessary.
Regarding the 3D model limitation of claim 7, see at least the top of page 3 which teaches a 3D model of the working environment is established.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Qingdao teaches wherein acquiring each of the first and second sets of the reachable posture data of the tool model comprises: receiving posture data of the tool model from a posture tracker configured to capture the posture data; acquiring a transfer matrix between a tool model coordinate system and a robot coordinate system; converting the posture data from the tool model coordinate system to the robot coordinate system by the transfer matrix; determining reachability of the posture data by the robot; and acquiring the reachable posture data based on the reachability of the posture data (a transformation of coordinate systems between model is taught in at least step 10 on pages 2 and 3, the top of page 5 in example 1, and in example 3 on page 6).
Regarding claim 3, Qingdao teaches acquiring a movement data of the workpiece associated with the control signal, wherein generating the first executable code and the second executable code comprises: based on the first set of reachable posture data, the movement data, and the second set of reachable posture data, generating the first executable code and the second executable code (Qingdao teaches multiple executable code is generated throughout, including at step 40, and steps 31-33).
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 16, Qingdao teaches the control signal is aligned with an end point of the first set of reachable posture data and a start point of the second set of reachable posture data in time domain (via the pose tracking system of page 4).
Regarding claim 5, Qingdao teaches the posture data comprises spatial position data and orientation data about each point on a moving path of the tool model; and the movement of the workpiece comprises at least one of a translation of the workpiece and a rotation of the workpiece around an axis (see at least page 4 at “The pose calculating unit 23 receives the image from the camera set 21 and performs image processing to identify the tracking marker 22 in the image and calculate and track the pose of the tracking marker 22 to obtain a handheld teaching. The position and attitude of the tool 11, and then transmits the real-time position and attitude to the computer 40”).
Regarding claim 10, Qingdao teaches the at least one three-dimensional sensor is calibrated with respect to the tool model; and the posture data of the tool model and the three-dimensional model of the workpiece are aligned with each other in spatial domain (as best understood, example 4 starting on page 7 appears to teach the limitations of claim 10 via the three dimensional modeling. See also at least example 1 which discloses multiple cameras are used in the camera set 21, thus allowing for 3D modeling of the operated member 50).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Qingdao teaches computer program product being tangibly stored on a computer readable storage medium (Qingdao teaches or at least implies computer code, both pre-stored and generated, throughout the disclosure) and comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method according to claim 1 or 7.
Claim 6, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107309882 A (UNIV QINGDAO TECHNOLOGICAL) in view of Gerio et al. (US 2010/0145520).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Qingdao teaches during movement of the tool model, sending an instruction in real time once it is determined that the posture data is approaching boundary of the reachable area of the robot. Qingdao does not use the word “alarm” as such, it does disclose near the end of page 5 that “The teaching staff 60 can observe whether the virtual robot interferes with the real scene in different directions, and whether the virtual robot operation process meets the requirements or not.” However, Qingdao still does not explicitly disclose an “alarm” is sent. The examiner contends that this could be considered functionally equivalent to the recited limitation of “sending an alarm instruction in real time…” However, for compact prosecution purposes, secondary reference Gerio discloses in a similar teaching robot system that it is well known in the art to provide industrial robots with alarms and warning codes (see at least [0021, 0027] which teaches alarms or warnings based on machine states Therefore, from the teaching of Gerio, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filling of the invention to provide the robot of Qingdao with an alarm/alert when the robot interferes with the reals scene in different directions in order to ensure that the user is aware of any potential spatial issues when moving the real robot within the work space to help avoid unwanted collisions.
Claim 8, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107309882 A (UNIV QINGDAO TECHNOLOGICAL) in view of Hane et al. (US 2018/0281173).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Qingdao discloses the limitations related to generating a working path as noted above, however, Qingdao does not appear to explicitly disclose segmenting the working path in smaller sections. Hane teaches it is well known in the art to segment or sectionalize a working path into smaller portions (see at least figure 2 and 0022-0026]). Therefore, from the teaching of Hane, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide the teaching robot of Qingdao with a path trajectory broken up into sections or segments in order to more precisely manipulate the workpiece and allow for better observation of the processing by the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights