2021000545 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2021)

ABB Schweiz AG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 2, 2021

2021000545 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/061,237 06/11/2018 Daniel Sirkett 04190-P0317A 7780 137670 7590 07/02/2021 ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC 600 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06901 EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUY-VI THI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): USPTO@dockettrak.com uspto@whipgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DANIEL SIRKETT, JEREMY POUECH, and PETER FRANSSON __________________ Appeal 2021-000545 Application 16/061,237 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES P. CALVE, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–4, 12, 13, 15, and 16.2 Appeal Br. 2–3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant argued at a hearing conducted on June 24, 2021. We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies ABB Schweiz AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 5–9, 14, 17, 18, and 20 were determined to contain allowable subject matter. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2021-000545 Application 16/061,237 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method for calibrating a robot system comprising a planar pick surface, the method including the steps of: bringing a robot gripper to a first location against the pick surface, and generating a first image of the robot gripper from below while the robot gripper is in contact with the pick surface. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). REJECTION3 Claims 1–4, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Asaoka Takuro.4 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Asaoka Takuro calibrates a robot system that includes a planar pick surface (base 28) by bringing robot gripper (hand 21, fingers 21a) to a first location against the pick surface and generating a first image of the robot gripper from below while the gripper contacts the pick surface as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Asaoka Takuro discloses a robot system with a planar pick surface (trough 29), a manipulator for moving robot gripper 21, vision system 3 for imaging objects on pick surface 29, and control unit 24 to control movement of the manipulator and correlate a position and orientation of the pick surface and manipulator based on an image from below of the robot gripper contacting the pick surface as recited in claim 13. Final Act. 4; Ans. 4–5. 3 An amendment to claims 10, 11, and 19 overcame a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). See Appeal Br. 3–4; Response to Office Action, May 4, 2020, 3, 4, 6–7; Adv. Action, mailed May 19, 2020 (entering amendment). 4 JP 2006/082170 A, published March 30, 2007. Appeal 2021-000545 Application 16/061,237 3 Appellant argues that Asaoka Takuro calibrates the robot system by imaging a workpiece 5 rather than robot gripper hand 21 to detect position coordinates of an index 5b of workpiece 5. Appeal Br. 7–8 (citing Asaoka Takuro ¶¶ 1, 3, 9, 18, 29). Appellant asserts that Asaoka Takuro does not calibrate the robot system by generating an image of a robot gripper (robot hand 21) while the robot hand 21 contacts a pick surface but instead spaces robot hand 21 apart from take-out stage 30 during calibration to create a gap so workpiece 5 does not interfere with glass plate pickup surface 30. Id. at 8–10 (citing Asaoka Takuro ¶ 38). We agree. Asaoka Takuro images index 5b (hole) in workpiece 5 to calibrate a tool position coordinate system with a detection position coordinate system. Asaoka Takuro ¶ 37. The calibration process sequentially moves the robot tool and workpiece 5 through a series of calibration positions to detect the X, Y coordinates of index 5b at different positions as shown in Figure 8, which is reproduced below. Id. ¶¶ 9, 37–42. Appeal 2021-000545 Application 16/061,237 4 Asaoka Takuro’s Figure 8 above illustrates a calibration process in which visual sensor 3 detects the position coordinates of index 5b rotated at calibration position C1. Asaoka Takuro ¶¶ 37–42. Index 5b is formed as a circular through hole in the tip side 5a of workpiece 5. Id. ¶ 26, Fig. 4. The Examiner has not established that Asaoka Takuro images a robot hand 21 contacting a pick surface 30 during calibration, as claimed. See Ans. 3–7; Final Act. 3–4. Asaoka Takura images workpiece 5 to detect coordinates of index 5b at different calibration positions such as position coordinates k1,1, l1,1 to k1,18, l1, 18 at position C1. Id. ¶¶ 37–42, Fig. 8. Even if fingers 21a of robot hand 21 contact pick surface 30 to pick up workpiece 5 as Figure 4B appears to illustrate (Ans. 6), this pick up/contact occurs during manipulation and movement of workpiece 5. It does not occur during calibration. Id. ¶ 26. During calibration, visual sensor 3 detects the positions of index 5b of workpiece 5 (not robot hand 21) at a slight gap over take out stage 30. Id. ¶¶ 1, 3, 9, 18, 26–29, 37, 38. During calibration, “[w]hen the robot hand 21 is moved on the take- out stage 30, the robot 5 has a height such that the work 5 and the take-out stage 30 have a slight gap so that the gripped work 5 does not interfere with the take-out stage 30.” Id. ¶ 38 (emphasis added).5 The Examiner’s finding that a side surface of workpiece 5 is a “pick surface” (Ans. 6) is inconsistent with the description of a pick surface as a planar surface that supports a workpiece. Spec. ¶ 28, Fig. 1. It is not part of the workpiece. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–4, 12, 13, 15, and 16. 5 In contrast to Asaoka Takuro’s calibration process, the claimed calibration process images detection marks 160 on the bottom face 180 of robot gripper 30 when detection marks 160 contact pick surface 90 at different locations. Spec. ¶ 31. Appeal 2021-000545 Application 16/061,237 5 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 12, 13, 15, 16 102(a)(1) Asaoka Takuro 1–4, 12, 13, 15, 16 REVERSED