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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
This action is non-final, and is in response to the amendments filed on 02/17/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7- 8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 19 have been amended. No claims have been canceled.
Summary of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-5 8-12 15-19 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1, in further view of Byrne et al US 20180348742 A1 is withdrawn. In view of the amendments a new rejection is made. Claims 1-5 8-12 15-19 are rejected 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 .
Claims 6, 13, 20 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1, in further view of Byrne et al US 20180348742 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of Component Assembly Time in Printed Circuit Boards IEEE LATIN AMERICA TRANSACTIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 1, MARCH 2010 is withdrawn. In view of the amendments a new rejection is made. Claims 6, 13, 20 are rejected 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
Claims 7, 14 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BUT et al US 20220172107 A1 in view of STR et al EP-3733355-A1, in further view of Byrne et al US 20180348742 A1 , in further view of Derechichei et al 20220075353 is withdrawn. In view of the amendments a new rejection is made. Claims 7, 14 are rejected 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
Response to Amendments and Arguments
In the amendment filed on May 22nd , 2025, applicant amended independent claims 1, 3, 5, 7- 8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 19 to include new limitations. The amendments have been fully considered.
Regarding the telephonic interview, the Examiner thanks the Applicant for the discussion and pointing out specific details, in particular the use of robotic swarms, or ‘robotic swarm bases’ more precisely, which appeared to overcome the rejections in the previous Office Action subject to further search and consideration. The Examiner agrees with the Summary.
The claims were amended to recite the “robotic swarm base” limitation, essentially the only added limitation, though in phrases made to integrate with the existing limitations. More specifically, in the independent claims, the added limitations are as follows, the added phase being underlined, as reciting refinements of the claim elements “assembly robots”, indicating these are associated or work in correlation with “robotic swarm bases”:
Assembly robots, one or more robotic swarm bases associated with the one or more assembly robots,
assembly robots in collaboration with the one or more robotic swarm bases to perform
assembly maneuvers, including altering positioning of the one or more robotic swarm bases associated with the one or more assembly robots
assembling the object by the one or more assembly robots in collaboration with the one or more robotic swarm bases based on the optimized assembly plan.
The phrase “robotic swarm base” was not used in the claims before amendment, and therefore its interpretation in view of the specification was not previously considered. The analysis of the specification reveals that the specification does not define the term “robotic swarm base”. In plain language, prima facie, a “base” aligns with the concept of a platform providing mobility and placement to the rest of the assembly robot including robotic arms, while the ‘robotic swarm’ appears to imply robotic platforms that have the two main characteristics of the swarm: 1) multiplicity and 2) ability to cooperate based only on individual rules of operation, without centralized control, as known to a POSITA and illustrated for example by Wikipedia :“Swarm robotics is the study of how to design independent systems of robots without centralized control.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_robotics - retrieved 3/3/2026.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The decentralized aspect is key to swarms, however, this is in contrast, however, with the specification, which recites “the optimized plan is using the simulation engine 106” and “[0004]…The processor may generate an optimized assembly plan” which clearly indicates a centralized architecture. In which a single processor generates the plan of assembly for all. A must have characteristic of a swarm not being satisfied, only the multiplicity remains supported. For that reason, in view of the specification, the phrase “robotic swarm base” can only be interpreted as a multitude of platforms with mobility.
The specification recites: “[0025]In embodiments, one or more assembly robots 108A-N may be configured in a variety of ways to perform object assembling. In some embodiments, one or more assembly robots 108A-N may be configured as robotic swarm bases configured to move throughout assembly environment 102 to perform various assembly maneuvers (e.g., instructions to move in a particular direction or perform a particular assembly task) or self-mobility (e.g., optimized assembly plan 116). One or more assembly robots 108A-N, such as those configured as robotic swarm bases,…
[0026] Though, as depicted in FIG.1, robotic mechanism 114 may be configured independently from the one or more assembly robots 108A-N, in other embodiments, robotic mechanism 114 may be configured on or within one or more assembly robots 108A-N (e.g., robotic mechanism 114 configured on a robotic swarm base) and configured to move throughout assembly environment 102. In embodiments, robotic mechanism 114 may include devices, such as robotic arms, that perform particular assembly functions.
In view of the specification the robotic swarm bases (i.e. platforms with mobility) are not a separate entity, but a part of assembly robots, emphasizing their mobility aspect. To this extent, assembly robots “associated with” or “in collaboration with” robotic swarm bases is a clarification/specification substantially similar to the phrase the “body is associated with the legs” or “the body (moves) in collaboration with the legs”.
Therefore, in BRI, this is interpreted to indicate assembly robots have a mobility base/platform, that assembly robots are mobile assembly robots. Robotic swarm bases emphasize the mobility of the assembly robots. Altering the position of a swarm base associated with an assembly robot is interpreted as repositioning a mobile assembly robot.
Thus, the limitations (amendments underlined, and all referring to this aspect) are interpreted in BRI as follows:
Assembly robots, one or more robotic swarm bases associated with the one or more assembly robots, = assembly robots may have robotic mobility/positioning platforms = assembly robots with mobility base = mobile assembly robots
assembly robots in collaboration with the one or more robotic swarm bases to perform…= assembly robots with mobility base= mobile assembly robots
assembly maneuvers, including altering positioning of the one or more robotic swarm bases associated with the one or more assembly robots = altering position of mobility base = (repositioning a) mobile assembly robot
assembling the object by the one or more assembly robots in collaboration with the one or more robotic swarm bases based on the optimized assembly plan. = mobility/movement of assembly robot is part of assembly = assembly by moving/mobile assembly robot
One should also emphasize that the specification does not recite, nor it implies or suggests the claim recitation of a collaboration between the robotic swarm base and the assembly robots (as mentioned the base would be the base of assembly robot, not a distinct component, i.e. the legs are part of the body).
The specification does, however, recite, in the only place where the term ‘collaboration’ is used: “[0022]They robotic assembly system may be configured to collaboration between the robotic swarm base modules and the robotic arm.” A “collaboration” (“coordination”) between mobility and manipulation, between ‘legs’ and ‘arms’ is in this context meaningful. This could be an amendment that is supported and though not thoroughly analyzed, is does not seem to be recited or suggested in the prior art used in the rejection.
Also the specification recites “[0035] In such embodiments, robotic assembly system 100 may dynamically reposition the one or more assembly robots 108A-N (e.g., robotic swarm bases and/or robotic mechanism), based on optimized assembly plan 116.” Claim 5 was adjusted to recite “dynamically repositioning the one or more robotic swarm bases assembly robots based on the updated optimized assembly plan” which is consistent with the interpretation of robotic swarm base as a mobile assembly robot.
Byrne et al US 20180348742 A1 (“BYR) has been one of the references used in combination under which the rejection of independent claims was made.
BYR does teach a mobile assembly robot, an assembly robot with a mobility base {[0136] FIG. 12 shows an example configuration of a robotic device 1200. ... the robotic device 1200 may be a humanoid robot, a robotic arm, or a quadruped robot, among others. [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.}
PNG
media_image2.png
335
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fragment from Fig 1.
Thus BYR provides what Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1 (“BUT”) lacks, as BUT is silent in regards to assembly robots being fixed or mobile, however BYR clear teaches that the assembly robots are mobile (capable of what a POSITA would term as “mobile manipulation” ).
The previous 35 USC 103 rejection was over BUT in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1 (“STR”) in further view of BYR. The limitation taught by STR did not involve a robotic swarm base, and in view of at least this aspect, it would have been more obvious to a POSITA to combine BUT with BYR first and then with STR, thus in a changed order.
Therefore the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over BUT in view of STR in further view of BYR is withdrawn, and a new rejection in view of BUT in view of BYR in further view of STR is made. The dependent claims rejection reflects the change in the independent claims.
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.
Independent claims 1, 8, 15 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.
The claim recites “assembly robots in collaboration with the one or more robotic swarm bases.” Robotic swarm base is a part or a configuration of an assembly robot. It is unclear if the robot collaborates with its own configuration/component of a swarm robotic base (one body collaborating with its own legs) , or there are two assembly robots separate from each other that are collaborating (one body collaborating with the legs of another). The specification does not clarify much since the only mention of collaboration is in par [0022] which recites “They robotic assembly system may be configured to collaboration between the robotic swarm base modules and the robotic arm.” (which makes more sense as the coordination/collaboration of legs and arms is meaningful and what a POSITA calls “mobile manipulation”. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are also rejected as they inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims.
A possible amendment of the claims indicating a different ‘collaboration’ and ‘association’ such as between mobility platform (“robotic warm base”) and manipulation (arm), might lead to overcoming 112(b) rejection, and possibly (subject to new search and analysis) of the current 103 rejection.
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 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, hereinafter BUT , in view of Byrne et al US 20180348742 A1, hereinafter BYR, hereinafter STR, in further in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1.
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 object is assembled by the one or more assembly robots (in collaboration with the one or more robotic swarm bases to perform) to perform one or more assembly maneuvers (including altering positioning of the one or more robotic swarm bases associated with the one or more assembly robots); {see at least [0022] sequence of subtasks of the assembly task that is to be completed by the robotic components 160a-n. [0002] Robotics planning refers to sequencing the physical movements of robotic components in order to perform tasks. For example, an industrial robot that builds cars can be programmed to first pick up a car part and then weld a car part onto the frame of the car. Each of these actions can themselves include dozens or hundreds of individual movements by robot motors and actuators.} Assembly maneuvers interpreted as individual movements.
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, {[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).
assembling the object by the one or more repositioned assembly robots (in collaboration with the one or more robotic swarm bases) 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 disclose, however BYR clearly discloses mobile assembly robots performing the assembly:
dynamically repositioning the one or more robotic swarm bases, based on the optimized assembly plan; (assembly robots) one or more robotic swarm bases associated with the one or more assembly robots, (interpreted as mobile assembly robots); (assembly robots) in collaboration with the one or more robotic swarm bases to perform one or more assembly maneuvers (interpreted as mobile assembly robots); (assembly maneuvers) including altering positioning of the one or more robotic swarm bases associated with the one or more assembly robot (interpreted as moving a mobile assembly robot) (assembly robots) in collaboration with the one or more robotic swarm bases (interpreted as mobile assembly robot) {BYR [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; [0136] FIG. 12 shows an example configuration of a robotic device 1200. ... the robotic device 1200 may be a humanoid robot, a robotic arm, or a quadruped robot, among others. [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) altering the plans on factory floor where robots perform assembly and robots have mobile base implies the plans include repositioning the assembly robots via/with robotic mobility base. Mobile assembly robots are interpreted as the robots with movable base, wheels, legs, etc.
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 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 to adapt to changes in plan sequence provided by mobile assembly robots (assembly robots with mobility platforms). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143) Both BUT and BYR are in the same field of robotic assembly. Since the elements disclosed by BUT and BYR 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 BYR.
BUT, BYR 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; {[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 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 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). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, BUT 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. 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 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, BYR in view of STR .
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, BUT/BYR/STR 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 BYR in further view of STR.
Regarding claims 3,10, 17 BUT/BYR/STR disclose the limitations of independent claims, including the use of mobile assembly robots. BYR further discloses:
wherein the repositioning of the one or more robotic swarm bases based on the optimized assembly plan is selected from a group consisting of: repositioning the one or more assembly robots to reduce movement of a project material during assembly; repositioning the one or more robotic swarm bases to reduce movement of a robotic arm during assembly; repositioning the one or more robotic swarm bases to reduce a time to complete assembly of the object; and repositioning the one or more robotic swarm bases 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_image3.png
416
497
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
335
268
media_image2.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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, BUT/BYR/STR 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. BYR is merely relied upon to specify that robots are repositioned to implement optimized plans and what metrics one improves, e.g time. As best understood by Examiner, since optimizing plans and repositioning robots based on optimized plans 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/BYR/STR and further teaching of BYR 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/BYR/STR in further view of BYR.
Regarding claims 4,11, 18 BUT/BYR/STR 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/BYR/STR 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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, BUT, STR evidently discloses generating optimized assembly plans. Further elements of STR are merely relied upon to consider changes, and redo the planning and evaluate the impact made by changes. As best understood by Examiner, since generating optimized plans and evaluating impact on regenerated optimized plans 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 and STR and further elements of 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 in view of STR .
Regarding claim 5, 12, 19 BUT/BYR/STR disclose the limitations of claims 4, 11, and 18 respectively, including the use of mobile assembly robots. BYR further discloses:
updating the optimized assembly plan based on the impact to form an updated optimized assembly plan; and dynamically repositioning the one or more robotic swarm bases 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/BYR/STR with further elements 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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, BUT, STR evidently discloses receiving assembly data and ability to generate optimized assembly plans, as well as ability to identify changes and determine impact of changes on plan. BYR is merely relied upon to update the optimized plan based on the impact of the change and reposition robots for updated plan.. As best understood by Examiner, since optimizing plans and generating updated optimized plans and repositioning robots based on updated optimized plans 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/BYR/STR and further elements of BYR 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/STR/BYR.
Claims 6, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butterfoss et al US 20220172107 A1, hereinafter BUT , in view of Strezhik et al EP-3733355-A1, hereinafter STR, in further view of Byrne et al US 20180348742 A1 , hereinafter BYR 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, hereinafter COS
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20 BUT/BYR/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 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, wherein the substitute assembly maneuver is performed in a different amount of time; determining 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_image4.png
428
368
media_image4.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/BYR/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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, BUT/BYR/STR evidently discloses receiving assembly data and ability to generate optimized assembly plans, with a number of robots. Costa is merely relied upon to show optimization with hill-climbing algorithm. As best understood by Examiner, since 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/BYR/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/BYR/STR in further view of COS.
Claims 7, 14 are rejected 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 , hereinafter BYR.
in further view of Derechichei et al 20220075353, hereinafter DER.
Regarding claim 7, 14 BUT/BYR/STR disclose the limitations of independent claims, including the use of mobile assembly robots. BUT/BYR/STR 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 one or more 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 and one or more assembly bases, 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/BYR/STR 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. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). 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/BYR/STR 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/BYR/STR in further view of DER
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.
Sverldov, US 20220089237 A1 ROBOTIC PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT FOR VEHICLES
Conclusion
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