Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of appeal brief filed on 9/26/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filling a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Sept. 26, 2025 has been entered. Claims 18-50 remain pending in the application.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18-19, 24-27, 31-32, 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krohne et al. (US 10,144,126) in view of Koreis (US 2015/0064299).
Regarding claims 18, 42, 44-46, 50, Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, a method for automated assembly of a transport structure (Fig. 1, item 4 (col. 14, lines 41-42 (i.e., the fuselage of an aircraft))) by a plurality of automated constructors (for example, items 2, 3 (robots) in Fig. 1 (col. 14, lines 38-41)), comprising a first automated constructor (i.e., item 2 (see label of fixed robot 2 (col. 14, lines 38-42) in attached annotated Figure I)) and a second automated constructor (i.e., item 3 (see label of movable robot 3 (col. 14, lines 40-41) in attached annotated Figure I)), wherein the first automated constructor is positioned at a first robotic assembly station (see label of fixed robot 2 positioned inside the fuselage 4 in attached annotated Figure I), the method comprising:
printing at least a portion of a component (e.g., a bracket to a portion of the fuselage 4 (col. 15, lines 7-8)) of the transport structure by a 3-D printer (col. 7, lines 19-20; col. 14, lines 16-18; col. 15, lines 3-12 (i.e., the movable robot 3 includes a tool 9 which may be a 3D printer 10)) (related to claim 50);
transferring the component to the first robotic assembly station with the second of the automated constructors (see label of movable robot 3 transferring to fuselage 4 in attached annotated Figure I; it is noticed that, there are multiple movable robot(s) 3 to transfer the components to the first assembly station. At least, one of them can be considered as a third automated constructor (related to claim 42)) such that a base of the second automated constructor moves relative to an underlying surface (it is noticed that, each of the second robots 3 comprises movement means which are or comprise preferably wheels, and which allow the respective second robot to be supported on a ground surface (col. 2, lines 33-38); here, the ground surface can be considered as a floor (related to claims 44, 45, 46)); and
installing the component by the first automated constructors (i.e., the fixed robot 2 in attached annotated Figure I) during the assembly of the transport structure (as shown in Figs. 2, 3 (for example, installing/assembling the robot 3 with a help from the robot 2 or installing/assembling items 12 (printed ready) from the storage region (col. 15, lines 14-26)); Specifically, it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the first robot 2 and the second robot 3 coupled (directly) to each other, wherein the second robot 3 is adapted to carry out 3D printing (col. 14, lines 16-18)).
At least, as illustrated in Fig. 6, Krohne discloses transporting/transferring printing material(s) for the 3D printing operation to fabricate a component for the fixed robot 2 to install to the fuselage (as shown in Fig. 1).
However, Krohne does not explicitly disclose transporting or transferring the printed component to the fixed robot 2 for installation.
In the same field of endeavor, 3d printing of parts, Koreis discloses three dimensionally printing parts (as illustrated in Figs. 11, 12) by which a client may reduce the time prior to installation of a replacement part ([0095], lines 4-6). Thus, Koreis discloses that, after the parts/components being three dimensionally printed, the parts/components are delivered to the aircraft (e.g., including fuselage as shown in Fig. 1; also see step 1110 in Fig. 11 for delivery).
In summary, the reference Koreis focuses on the components required by the manufacturing the aircraft especially its fuselage. First, these components are fabricated by the 3d printing process majorly by different vendors or manufacturers and then, are transported/transferred to the installation location for the final assembly.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Krohne to have the installations of the 3d printed parts by robots as Koreis teaches that it is known to have the printed parts being delivered to the installation sites. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure I (based on Fig. 1 in the teachings of Krohne)
Regarding claims 19, 43, Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, at least a portion of the plurality of automated constructors are configured to move in an automated fashion between stations (for example, as shown in Fig. 1, the robot 3 is moving between the local station (i.e., the claimed first assembly station) where the fuselage (4) is built and the remote (storage region 12) station) under the guidance of a central control system (col. 16, lines 3-9; it is noticed that, the central control unit is not shown in Figs. 1-4).
Through the central control system, controlling the 3-D printer by the central control system to print at least a portion of a second component of the transport structure with the 3-D printer; controlling a third automated constructor by the central control system to engage the second component; and controlling the third automated constructor by the central control system to install the second component during the assembly of the transport structure (related to claim 43).
Regarding claims 24-27, Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, the robot 2 having the robot arm 6 is positioned inside the fuselage 4 (col. 14, lines 41-42). Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, it is alternatively or additionally possible that the robots 3 are placed by the robot arm 6 of the robot 2 at the location at which the specific operation is to be carried out (col. 16, lines 21-24). Thus, Krohne discloses that, the automated constructors during the assembly of the transport structure including the transfer of the component from the first one of the automated constructors to the second one of the automated constructors. Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, moving the transport structure (e.g., item 12) between a plurality of stations (for example, as shown in Fig. 1, the robot 3 (i.e., the first one of the automated constructors) carrying item 12 is moving between the local station where the fuselage (4) is built and the remote (storage region 12) station) during the assembly of the transport structure (related to claims 25, 26, 27).
Regarding claims 31-32, Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 6, the printing at least a portion of a component (for example, a fuselage 4 in Fig. 2) comprises printing a first portion of the component onto a non-printed second portion of the component (i.e., item 4 in Fig. 2; it is noticed that, for the fuselage of the aircraft, its major structural elements are not from 3d printing) by the 3-D printer (i.e., item 10 in Fig. 3 or 6 (col. 15, line 5-6)). Krohne discloses that, printing at least a portion of a component comprises printing an interconnect (for example, a bracket (col. 15, line 6-9)) configured to interconnect the component to another structure (related to claim 32).
Regarding claims 35, 36, 41, Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, each location of the multiple movable robots 3 can be considered as a plurality of robotic assembly stations in which the tool 9 may be a 3D printer (col. 7, lines 19-20; col. 14, lines 16-18; col. 15, lines 3-12 (i.e., the movable robot 3 includes a tool 9 which may be a 3D printer 10)).
Regarding claims 40, 41, Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, each of the automated constructor of the plurality of the automated constructors performs a plurality of different tasks (for example, transferrin and installing as shown in Fig. 1) at a plurality of locations (for example, in storage location and assembly location as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 47-49, Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 5, the movable robot 3 is carrying different components (item 12 in Fig. 5) in the container 13 (col. 16, lines 62-67; here, the container can be considered as a tray) to the fixed robot 2 in the first assembly station.
Claims 20-23, 28-30, 34, 37, 38, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Krohne et al. (US 10,144,126) and Koreis (US 2015/0064299) as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Telleria et al. (US 2018/0283019).
Regarding claims 20-21, Krohne discloses that, the second robots 3 including a 3D printer 10 are second robots 3, 10 of a first category adapted to carry out a specific operation involving a modification of the aircraft or spacecraft (i.e., for vehicle assembly (related to claim 21)) and the second robots 3, 14 including a measurement or observation tool 14 are second robots of a second category adapted for observing, measuring or analyzing the result of the specific operation (col. 15, lines 27-33). Thus, Krohne discloses that, at least a portion of the plurality of automated constructors comprise one or more sensors to enable each of the portion of the plurality of automated constructors to adaptably perform one or more analyzing functions. However, Krohne does not disclose any machine leaning during its analyzing process. In the similar field of endeavor, automated manufacturing (via 3d printing), Telleria discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-2, 17, 18, in order to improve future performance of the system 100 (i.e., a 3d printing machine ([0024], [0025], [0028]; [0179], lines 15-17)), machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithms can be applied to data over multiple jobs to update operating parameters ([0116], lines a-6 from bottom). Telleria discloses that, a first automated system 100 that was responsible for spraying joint compound 630 can provide data about compound thickness localized to features of the wall ([0116], lines 6-9). Further, Telleria discloses that, the planner can automatically optimize tool parameters, tool paths, and the like given a set of user inputs ([0117], lines 1-3 from bottom). Thus, Telleria discloses that, the one or more machine learning functions comprise at least one of optimizing printing movement patterns (related to claim 21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Kronhe by adding machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithms to data over multiple jobs to update operating parameters and change the performance of one or more individual systems as taught by Telleria ([0116]).
Regarding claims 22-23, 37, 38, 39, Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, the first one of the automated constructors (for example, item 3 in Fig. 1 (col. 7, lines 19-20; col. 14, lines 16-18; col. 15, lines 3-12)) comprises an automated robotic apparatus having a robotic arm at a distal end of the arm, the component being transferred from the first one of the automated constructors to the second one of the automated constructors (for example, item 2 in Fig. 1 (col. 14, lines 38-39)) by the robotic arm.
However, Krohne does not explicitly disclose the robotic arm with a robotic effector. Telleria discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, the system 100 (i.e., a constructor) includes a base unit 120, a robotic arm 140 and an end effector 160 ([0024], lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Krohne to have the automated robotic apparatus having a robotic arm as Telleria teaches that it is known to have the system 100 (i.e., a constructor) includes a base unit 120, a robotic arm 140 and an end effector 160. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 28-30, Krohne discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a third one of the automated constructors (Fig. 1, item 2’ (col. 15, lines 48-52)) comprises an automated robotic apparatus having a robotic arm at a distal end of the arm, the method further comprising using the robotic effector during the assembly of the transport structure.
However, Krohne does not explicitly disclose the robotic arm with a robotic effector. Telleria discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, the system 100 (i.e., a constructor) includes a base unit 120, a robotic arm 140 and an end effector 160 ([0024], lines 1-3). Telleria discloses that, it can be desirable to have a base unit 120 and robotic arm 140 that can couple with and operate a plurality of different end effector 160 to perform one or more tasks ([0040], lines 5-7). Thus, Telleria discloses that, automatedly exchanging the robotic arm with another robotic effector (related to claims 29-30).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Krohne to have the automated robotic apparatus having a robotic arm as Telleria teaches that it is known to have automatedly exchanging the robotic arm with another robotic effector. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 34, Krohne does not disclose that, affixing a label onto the component for uniquely identifying the component. Telleria discloses that, the system 100 can also mark pieces of drywall 610 or other suitable substrate to individually label them ([0069], lines 1-4 from bottom).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Krohne to have the automated robotic apparatus as Telleria teaches that it is known to affix the label onto the component. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Krohne et al. (US 10,144,126) and Koreis (US 2015/0064299) as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Colson et al. (US 2018/0208336).
Regarding claim 33, Krohne does not disclose that, recycling metal to produce the metal powder and automatically providing the recycled metal powder to the 3d printer. In the similar field of endeavor, 3d printed package, Colson discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 8, the package may be made (i.e., through 3d printing (item 804 in Fig. 8)) in whole or in part of a recycled material (e.g., metal) ([0083], lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Krohne to have the automated robotic apparatus being a 3d printer as Colson teaches that it is known to have the package may be made (i.e., through 3d printing (item 804 in Fig. 8)) in whole or in part of a recycled material (e.g., metal). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741