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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is final.
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 06/04/2026.
Claim 17 has been canceled.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, and 19-20 have been amended.
The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
In view of the amendments, previous rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn and a new ground of rejection under U.S.C. 103 is made, as follows
Claims 1-5 8-12 15, 16, 18, 19 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, in view of Byrne et al US 20180348742 A1, in further view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1 is withdrawn
Claims 6, 13, 20 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, in view of Byrne et al US 20180348742 A1, in further view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1, in further view of Costa Fllho et al Using Random Restart Hill Climbing Algorithm for Minimization of Component Assembly Time in Printed Circuit Boards IEEE LATIN AMERICA TRANSACTIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, MARCH 2010 is withdrawn
Claims 7, 14 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUT et al US 20220172107 A1 in view of Byrne et al US 20180348742 A1, in further view of STR et al EP-3733355-A1 , in further view of Derechichei et al 20220075353 is withdrawn
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, hereinafter BUT , in view of Hamner et al An autonomous mobile manipulator for assembly tasks Auton Robot (2010) 28: 131–149 DOI 10.1007/s10514-009-9142-y (“HAM”) in further in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1 hereinafter STR, in further view of Costa Fllho et al Using Random Restart Hill Climbing Algorithm for Minimization of Component Assembly Time in Printed Circuit Boards IEEE LATIN AMERICA TRANSACTIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, MARCH 2010 (“COS”)
Claims 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, hereinafter BUT , in view of Hamner et al An autonomous mobile manipulator for assembly tasks Auton Robot (2010) 28: 131–149 DOI 10.1007/s10514-009-9142-y (“HAM”) in further in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1 hereinafter STR, in further view of Costa Fllho et al Using Random Restart Hill Climbing Algorithm for Minimization of Component Assembly Time in Printed Circuit Boards IEEE LATIN AMERICA TRANSACTIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, MARCH 2010 (“COS”) in further view of Derechichei et al 20220075353, hereinafter DER.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for the Amendments and Arguments filed on 06/04/2026 which have been considered and which help clarifying the claimed invention and advance prosecution.
Claim 17 has been canceled. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending and have been considered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, and 19-20 have been amended.
In view of the amendments the 112(b) rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 15 and of their dependent claims has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 rejection, the amendments introduce to the independent claims essentially two limitations, the collaboration/coordination between a mobile base and a manipulator/mechanism/arm, and the substitution of a maneuver with one that is executable in less time. The later is in BRI similar to limitations of claim 6 and an obviousness case was made for that claim, in further view of Costa Fllho et al Using Random Restart Hill Climbing Algorithm for Minimization of Component Assembly Time in Printed Circuit Boards IEEE LATIN AMERICA TRANSACTIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, MARCH 2010’ (“COS”) and as such the same reference and motivation will be used. The first required a new search and a new reference was found., Hamner et al An autonomous mobile manipulator for assembly tasks Auton Robot (2010) 28: 131–149 DOI 10.1007/s10514-009-9142-y, which explicitly teaches coordinated control of base and manipulator in assembly task.
The claims refer to robots that have a mobility base/platform, and a robotic mechanism such as a(n) manipulator/arm (the ensemble referred also in the literature as mobile manipulators) and are used for assembly. In BRI and view of the specification [0022], the collaboration between mobile bases and the manipulator/arm, is interpreted as a coordination or the two working not totally independent in actions. Thus, the independent claims recites determining and executing an optimal assembly plan for one or more robots, which have their mobility and manipulation coordinated, determining maneuvers that are executable in less time and substituting them to ones taking longer.
The assembly by one or multiple mobile manipulation robots has been an active field for some time. A level of coordination of mobility and manipulation is to a large extent inherent since a lack of coordination between two would make any task impossible (imagine the arm moves towards an object while the mobility base moves away from the object…) Reducing the time for assembly maneuvers has only two options, changing one at a time, substituting with a faster one; or changing an entire set of them (or all) and replacing at once. The first one is less disruptive, akin to what in optimization is a hill climbing (gradient ascent/descent approach) leading to a monotonic improvement, guarantied not to get worse up to reaching a local optimum. While global searches have become more popular, an incremental change is usually the first to try and simplest to implement. For a problem that addressing an assembly with multiple maneuvers of one or more robots with mobility and manipulation, it would have been obvious to combine exactly these elements coordination and incremental progress/substitution of faster maneuvers (when time is the objective to optimize).
Therefore the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over BUT in view of BYR in further view of STR is withdrawn, and a new rejection over BUT/HAM/STR/COS is made. The dependent claims rejection reflects the change in the independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims with similar limitations are grouped and analyzed together.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, hereinafter BUT , in view of Hamner et al An autonomous mobile manipulator for assembly tasks Auton Robot (2010) 28: 131–149 DOI 10.1007/s10514-009-9142-y (“HAM”) in further in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1 hereinafter STR, in further view of Costa Fllho et al Using Random Restart Hill Climbing Algorithm for Minimization of Component Assembly Time in Printed Circuit Boards IEEE LATIN AMERICA TRANSACTIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, MARCH 2010 (“COS”)
Claims 1, 8, 15 share a group of similar limitations; Claim 8 (system claim) has an additional limitation.
Re the additional limitation claim 8, BUT discloses:
a memory; and a processor in communication with the memory, the processor being configured to perform operations comprising: {[Abstract] computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for generating a robotic control plan.[0144] programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers.}
Re the group of similar limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, BUT discloses:
receiving, by a processor, assembly data associated with one or more assembly robots and an object, {[0021] In particular, the planner 190 is configured to generate the robotic control plan 192 using i) instruction data 172 and ii) assembly component data 174, both provided by the assembly instruction system 170. [0022] The instruction data 172 is data representing a sequence of subtasks of the assembly task that is to be completed by the robotic components 160a-n. [0024] In some implementations, the assembly instruction system 170 obtains the instruction data 172 and/or the assembly component data 174 from an external system. For example, the assembly instruction system 170 can obtain the instruction data 172 and/or the assembly component data 174 from an external system of a manufacturer of the assembly components. That is, the manufacturer of the assembly components (e.g., assembly components of ready-to-assemble furniture; see also Fig. 2B}. Receiving, by a processor, assembly data associated with one or more assembly robots and an object, in BRI, is interpreted as instruction data provided by the Assembly instruction system to the planner.
wherein the one or more assembly robots include a robotic mechanism configured to perform assembly operations and a robotic swarm base forming a mobile platform for providing mobility within an assembly environment, {[0017] The tasks in the robotic control plan 192 can include an assembly task, whereby the robotic components 160a-n manipulate one or more assembly components in order to assemble a final assembly product. In particular, the robotic control system 150 can execute the robotic control plan 192 by issuing commands 152 to the robotic components 160a-n in order to drive the movements of the robotic components 160a-n; [0138] At a next-highest level, the software stack can include joint collection controllers. .. a single joint collection controller can be used to apply different sets of policies to different subsystems in the lower levels. …, for example if a robot arm has a movable base, a joint collection controller can be used to enforce a set of limit policies on how the arm moves and to enforce a different set of limit policies on how the movable base can move.} Robotic mechanism configured to perform assembly operations interpreted as robot arm, robotic swarm base forming a mobile platform interpreted as movable base.
generating an optimized assembly plan based, at least in part, on altering the one or more alterable factors associated with the one or more assembly maneuvers [including the substitute assembly maneuver to replace the identified assembly maneuver]; {[0088] In some implementations, the planner 190 can generate the robotic control plan 192 by executing one or more optimization simulations that identify the most efficient sequence of robotic movements that successfully accomplish the assembly task. For example, the planner 190 can execute thousands, millions, or billions of such simulations to fine-tune the robotic control plan 192.} In BRI and in view of the specification, generating an optimized assembly plan based on altering alterable factors associated with assembly maneuvers interpreted as the generating, by executing optimization simulations that fine-tune the plan (make adjustments) a robotic control plan (which is optimized by executing optimization simulations). BUT is not explicit about including the assembly maneuver but is inclusive of all possible ones and aims for the most efficient sequence of movements which implies that one that is not most efficient will be replaced. This obviousness of this limitation will be made clearer in the combination that follows.
assembling the object by the one or more repositioned assembly based on the optimized assembly plan.{ [0017] The overall goal of the planner 190 of the robotic planning system 110 is to generate a robotic control plan 192 that allows the robotic control system 150 to execute one or more tasks in the robotic operating environment 102. The tasks in the robotic control plan 192 can include an assembly task, whereby the robotic components 160a-n manipulate one or more assembly components in order to assemble a final assembly product [0088] In some implementations, the planner 190 can generate the robotic control plan 192 by executing one or more optimization simulations } assembly robots interpreted as the robotic components that manipulate assembly components.
BUT does not explicitly disclose, however HAM clearly discloses the coordinated action of arm and mobile base:
wherein the robotic swarm base collaborates with the robotic mechanism to perform one or more assembly maneuvers associated with assembling the object {See at least [title] An autonomous mobile manipulator for assembly tasks P132 left col 2.1 Coordinated control of base and manipulator p135 left col, bottom, ; p132 right col, 2nd para - in the context of coordination of mobile bases and manipulators, many authors have contributed to the literature.- 4 Coordinated control This section highlights our work on coordination of a dexterous manipulator and mobile base to achieve flexible 6-DOF end effector placement.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of BUT with HAM. One would have been motivated to coordinate the mobility base and manipulation in order to obtain the advantage of more efficient actions, and not creating conflicting situations in which lack of coordination can lead to delays in positioning (e.g. base moving away while manipulatr ties to reach or place an object). Both BUT and HAM are in the same field of robotic assembly. Since the elements disclosed by BUT and HAM would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over BUT in view of HAM.
BUT, HAM does not explicitly disclose, however STR clearly discloses:
analyzing the assembly data and the one or more assembly maneuvers associated with assembling the object; identifying one or more alterable factors associated with the one or more assembly maneuvers including a substitute assembly maneuver that is capable of being performed in less time as compared to an assembly maneuver of the one or more assembly maneuvers; {[Col 4, ln 25-28] the robot processing of an operated object can be analyzed, and optimized operations can be determined. The robot control system can analyze variables in the robot cell to determine optimization. [Col 5 ln 41-50] The system can analyze performance criteria for each of the plurality of different robot movements and then identify an optimal movement based upon the desired performance criteria. For example, the system can identify the optimized movements based upon criteria such as accuracy, speed, and energy consumption. This optimization can be extended to energy costs. For example, the system may adjust the movements and speeds of the robots based upon cumulative electrical power requirements of the factory.} in BRI a substitute assembly maneuver that is capable of being performed in less time as compared to an assembly maneuver of the one or more assembly maneuvers is not recited ad litteram, the identification of optimized movements for speed implies or at least suggests that a faster movement would be identified – by comparison with an existing one and a person skilled in the art would have understood as such.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of BUT, HAM with STR . One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of acting on the main factors that can be varied to provide the best optimization (lowest minimum or highest maximum). In the instant case, BUT/HAM evidently discloses receiving assembly data and generating optimized assembly plans by acting on factors that can be changed to improve some assembly metric and assembling with robots. STR is merely relied upon to analyze the assembly data to determine the factors that can be changed in particular maneuvers that can be performed faster (by comparison with an existing one). As best understood by Examiner, since optimizing plans based on factors that can be changed and analyzing and determining the factors that can be changed are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by BUT/HAM and STR would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over BUT, HAM in view of STR .
BUT/HAM/STR imply, or at least suggest the identification of an assembly maneuver that is faster (can be g performed in less time than one in a current sequence and replacing it in optimized plan.
BUT/HAM/STR do not explicitly teach, however COS teaches
[identifying one or more alterable factors associated with the one or more assembly maneuvers] including a substitute assembly maneuver that is capable of being performed in less time as compared to an assembly maneuver of the one or more assembly maneuvers ; and [generating an optimized assembly plan based, at least in part, on altering the one or more alterable factors associated with the one or more assembly maneuvers] including the substitute assembly maneuver to replace the identified assembly maneuver; and
. { [p 25, left col a - IV Methodology] random swap is performed in state E1(n), generating a state E2(n). If the value of the cost function E2(n), C2 is less than the value of the cost function of E1(n), C1, state E1(n) receives state E2(n). The variables Ci shown in this algorithm correspond to values of a cost function that calculates the component assembly time on the PCB. } The claim and the paper describe the steps of a hill climbing algorithm applied to the assembly problem.
PNG
media_image1.png
428
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim can be interpreted as a hill climbing algorithm applied to minimizing the time of assembly, which is exactly what the paper teaches. Hill climbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_climbing Is well known to POSITA. As Wikipedia shows “It is an iterative algorithm that starts with an arbitrary solution to a problem, then attempts to find a better solution by making an incremental change to the solution. If the change produces a better solution, another incremental change is made to the new solution, and so on until no further improvements can be found.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of BUT/HAM/STR with COS. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of applying a hill-climbing algorithm a well known and simple to implement optimization algorithm. BUT/HAM/STR evidently discloses receiving assembly data and ability to generate optimized assembly plans with robots. Costa is merely relied upon to show optimization with hill-climbing algorithm in which certain maneuvers found better would replace existing ones, where better includes better in time it takes to do the maneuver. Both optimizing plans and using hill-climbing optimization are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by BUT/HAM/STR and COS would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over BUT/HAM/STR in further view of COS.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, BUT/HAM/STR/COS disclose the limitations of independent claims, including the use of mobile assembly robots. BUT further discloses:
generating one or more simulations associated with the object and assembly data, wherein the optimized assembly plan is based on the one or more simulations. {[0088] In some implementations, the planner 190 can generate the robotic control plan 192 by executing one or more optimization simulations that identify the most efficient sequence of robotic movements that successfully accomplish the assembly task.}
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over BUT in view of HAM in further view of STR.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18 BUT/HAM/STR/COS disclose the limitations of independent claims, including the use of mobile assembly robots. STR further discloses:
analyzing the assembly data; identifying a change associated with the object has occurred; and simulating the change and the optimized assembly plan to determine an impact of the change on the optimized assembly plan. {[0014] Col 4] the robot processing of an operated object can be analyzed, and optimized operations can be determined. The robot control system can analyze variables in the robot cell to determine optimization.}{[0028] Col 8} Changes in the virtual environment 161 might be needed when unexpected situations happen, such as: object failure, breakage of objects/equipment, malfunctioning of equipment, etc. The robot control system 145 may also need to correct the current robot movements and may issue corresponding requests to the motion planner 143. In such cases, the virtual robot cell environment 161 can request from standard motion planner 143 to re-generate the list of possible motion scripts according to the corrected assembling scenario and repeat the described motion script optimization process in the same manner described above.} Identifying the change and simulating the change and optimized assembly plan to determine its impact is interpreted as the change when expected situation happen, and planner runs again the planning, in the virtual environment – which is a simulation.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of BUT/HAM/STR/COS with further elements of STR . One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of accommodating changes, and facing real-world situations which involve changes compared to ideal executions and idea world.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over BUT/HAM/STR/COS .
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20 BUT/BHAM/STR disclose the limitations of independent claims, including the use of mobile assembly robots. BUT/BYR/STR does not explicitly disclose, however COS teaches
wherein generating the optimized assembly plan further includes {[Title] Hill Climbing Algorithm for Minimization of Component Assembly Time }: optimized assembly plan interpreted as minimization of component assembly.
simulating a particular assembly maneuver of the one or more assembly maneuvers;{[Results] The simulations to obtain the assembly time were performed using a system developed in Visual C} all maneuvers are simulated .
determining an amount of time associated with performing the particular assembly maneuver, wherein the amount of time is an alterable factor; identifying a substitute assembly maneuver as capable of being performed in a different amount of time; determining that the different amount of time associated with the substitute assembly maneuver is less than the amount of time of the particular assembly maneuver; and replacing the particular assembly maneuver with the substitute assembly maneuver. { [p 25, left col a - IV Methodology] random swap is performed in state E1(n), generating a state E2(n). If the value of the cost function E2(n), C2 is less than the value of the cost function of E1(n), C1, state E1(n) receives state E2(n). The variables Ci shown in this algorithm correspond to values of a cost function that calculates the component assembly time on the PCB. } The claim and the paper describe the steps of a hill climbing algorithm applied to the assembly problem.
PNG
media_image1.png
428
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim can be interpreted as a hill climbing algorithm applied to minimizing the time of assembly, which is exactly what the paper teaches. Hill climbing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_climbing Is well known to POSITA. As Wikipedia shows “It is an iterative algorithm that starts with an arbitrary solution to a problem, then attempts to find a better solution by making an incremental change to the solution. If the change produces a better solution, another incremental change is made to the new solution, and so on until no further improvements can be found.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of BUT/HAM/COS with further teaching of COS. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of applying a hill-climbing algorithm a well known and simple to implement optimization algorithm.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over BUT/HAM/STR/COS.
Claims 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, hereinafter BUT , in view of Hamner et al An autonomous mobile manipulator for assembly tasks Auton Robot (2010) 28: 131–149 DOI 10.1007/s10514-009-9142-y (“HAM”) in further in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1 hereinafter STR, in further view of Costa Fllho et al Using Random Restart Hill Climbing Algorithm for Minimization of Component Assembly Time in Printed Circuit Boards IEEE LATIN AMERICA TRANSACTIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, MARCH 2010 (“COS” in further view of Derechichei et al 20220075353, hereinafter DER.
Regarding claim 7, 14 BUT/HAM/STR/COS disclose the limitations of independent claims, including the use of mobile assembly robots. BUT/HAM/STR/COS do not explicitly disclose, however DER discloses,
Wherein generating the optimized assembly plan includes: {[Abstract] The processing system disclosed herein may be configured to generate assembly sequences for a plurality of parts and determine an optimal assembly sequence from the generated assembly sequences by comparing the generated assembly sequences. }
simulating the assembly data and the one or more assembly maneuvers associated with assembling the object; determining an assembly time associated with assembling the object using an initial number of the one or more assembly robots and the assembly bases, wherein the initial number of the one or more assembly robots is an alterable factor; and identifying an optimized number of the one or more assembly robots, wherein the optimized number of the one or more assembly robots is based on simulating the assembly data and the one or more assembly maneuvers associated with assembling the object. { [0007] The first simulation performance information may be associated with a robotic cell configuration that includes a plurality of robots. The first simulation performance information may include first robot utilization information and at least one of: first cycle time information corresponding to the plurality of robots...[Abstract] In some examples, the optimal sequence of assembly may provide the highest robot utilization, the shortest cycle time…The processing system disclosed herein may be configured to generate assembly sequences for a plurality of parts and determine an optimal assembly sequence from the generated assembly sequences by comparing the generated assembly sequences. [0052] Referring back to FIG. 1, for each assembly simulation of a generated assembly sequence, simulator 106 may generate simulation performance information. The simulator performance information may be associated with the configuration of robotic cell 130, which may be defined by the robotic cell configuration information 124. The simulator performance information may include robot resource allocation, robot utilization information, task scheduling and cycle time information, assembly accuracy information, etc., corresponding to the simulated sequence and performance of the one or more robots in robotic cell 130 during the simulated assembly of the plurality of parts in accordance with a generated assembly sequence. In some examples, robot utilization information may identify how many of the robots among the plurality of robots of the simulated robotic cell are utilized by the generated assembly sequence.; see also, as a different embodiment [0055] The validity criteria may include a threshold number of robots criterion, such as a maximum number or a minimum number of robots used during the simulation to assemble the parts in accordance with the assembly sequence. In this example, the simulation performance information processor 108 may discard or accept the assembly sequence based on whether this validity criterion is satisfied based on the robot utilization information of the simulation performance information. For example, the simulation performance information processor 108 may compare the threshold number of robots criterion to robot utilization information to determine whether an assembly sequence should be accepted or discarded. An assembly sequence may be discarded if the threshold number of robots criterion is not satisfied, and may be accepted if the threshold number of robots criterion is satisfied.} one or more assembly robots and the one or more assembly bases is interpreted as one or more mobile assembly robots, which were taught by BYR.
Regarding the limitation identifying the optimal number of robots, there are two embodiments with different ways of identifying - In the first embodiment the optimized number of robots is identified is interpreted as “identify how many of the robots among the plurality of robots of the simulated robotic cell are utilized by the generated assembly sequence” (which is the optimized sequence, hence optimized number of robots). In the second embodiment the interpretation for the identification is made by the validation /acceptance of the sequence for the specified maximum number of robots.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of BUT/HAM/STR/COS with DER. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of determining how many robots would take to do the assembly in minimal time, for which the straightforward procedure is to compare the time it takes with different number of robots, in simulation, starting with the initial number in instructions. In the instant case, BUT/BYR/STR evidently discloses receiving assembly data and ability to generate optimized assembly plans, with a number of robots. DER is merely relied upon to compare the time to assemble with various numbers of robots, and determine an optimal number. As best understood by Examiner, since optimizing plans and generating plans optimized for the number of robots are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by BUT/HAM/STR/COS and DER would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the combination would be predictable.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over BUT/HAM/STR/COS in further view of DER.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, hereinafter BUT , in view of Hamner et al An autonomous mobile manipulator for assembly tasks Auton Robot (2010) 28: 131–149 DOI 10.1007/s10514-009-9142-y (“HAM”) in further in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1 hereinafter STR, in further view of Costa Fllho et al Using Random Restart Hill Climbing Algorithm for Minimization of Component Assembly Time in Printed Circuit Boards IEEE LATIN AMERICA TRANSACTIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, MARCH 2010 (“COS”) in further view of Byrne et al US 20180348742 A1, (“BYR”).
Regarding claims 3,10 BUT/HAM/STR/COS disclose the limitations of independent claims, including the use of mobile assembly robots. BUT/HAM/STR/COS does not explicitly disclose (although identifying a faster maneuver and executing allows the maneuver to be the move/change in position/repositioning of the mobile base) however BYR discloses:
further comprising repositioning of the robotic swarm base based on the optimized assembly plan the repositioning is selected from a group consisting of: repositioning the assembly robots to reduce movement of a project material during assembly; repositioning the robotic swarm base to reduce movement of a robotic arm during assembly; repositioning the robotic swarm base to reduce a time to complete assembly of the object; and repositioning the robotic swarm base to reduce an idle time of the one or more assembly robots. {[0053] robotic devices install parts in an assembly line to assemble a product…robotic devices combine a variety of parts to construct a physical structure; [0117] changes that could be occurring to the worksite in real-time. [0070] altering planned tasks in real time or almost real time; [0083] Examples of performance constraints include, but are not limited to, building time, speed, manufacturing methods, efficiency, cost, material waste, resources used, etc.; [0094] Examples of performance constraints include optimizing for an aesthetic or functional property, optimizing for time, optimizing for accuracy, among other examples.; see also Fig 9; Fig. 1 [0140] … The moveable component(s) 1216 may include appendages/members such as robotic arms, legs, and/or hands, among others. The moveable component(s) 1216 may also include a movable base, wheels, and/or end effectors, among others.} based on optimized assembly plan is interpreted as altering the planned tasks in real time (which implicitly is optimal in respect to something, since no one would try to intentionally execute a worse plan). Optimizing for time, for building (assembly) time. Fig 9 also shows repositioning with a second sequence of tasks. Robotic swarm bases interpreted as mobile assembly robots.
PNG
media_image2.png
416
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
335
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fragment from Fig 1.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of BUT/BYR/STR with further teaching of BYR. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of improved access to assembly from more favorable positions and execute optimal sequences of movements to optimize some cost, such as reducing the time to execute the assembly, thus increasing productivity.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over BUT/HAM/STR/COS in further view of BYR.
Regarding claim 5, 12, 19 BUT/HAM/STR/COS disclose the limitations of claims 4, 11, and 18 respectively, including the use of mobile assembly robots. BUT/HAM/STR/COS does not disclose, however BYR discloses:
updating the optimized assembly plan based on the impact to form an updated optimized assembly plan; and dynamically repositioning the robotic swarm base based on the updated optimized assembly plan. {[0036] In an embodiment, in response to determining that the product is not buildable, the system could return to the design phase. In the design stage, the system could use the tree structure to generate a new sequence of tasks to build the product that is to be performed instead of the original sequence of tasks.; {[0053] factory floor where robotic devices install parts in an assembly line to assemble a product (e.g., a table, airplane wing, etc… robotic devices combine a variety of parts to construct a physical structure; [0117] system could dynamically update the world map in real-time using at least the data received from devices (e.g., robotic devices, sensors, etc.) located in the worksite. As such, the world map not only could define spatial features of the worksite, but could also include physical details of the worksite, such as changes that could be occurring to the worksite in real-time. Accordingly, a live link between the world map and the physical world could be established; [0070] controls could be provided for manipulating one or more tasks being executed during runtime.. modify a building process by altering planned tasks in real time or almost real time; Fig 9} updating plan based on impact is interpreted as determining system is not buildable; act based on optimized assembly plan is interpreted as altering the planned tasks in real time (which implicitly is optimal in respect to something, since no one would try to intentionally execute a worse plan)
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of BUT/HAM/STR/COS with of BYR. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to obtain the advantage of improved access to assembly from more favorable positions that are optimized to cope with changes.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over BUT/HAM/STR/COS /BYR.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sasaki M JP 2020082285 A
KROHNE EP 3135441 A1 The present invention relates to a modularized robot, a modular robot assembly kit, a swarm of modularized robots built up from a modular robot assembly kit, and a method of fulfilling tasks by a swarm of modularized robots, particularly in the assembly, construction, maintenance and/or repair of vehicles such as aircraft or spacecraft; Fig 12, ; The working environment 100 of Fig. 12 may also be implemented in a module of a space station with swarm robots performing assembly tasks, maintenance tasks and/or experiments
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights