DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 05 January 2026, for application number 17/797,251. Claims 1-3 and 5-18 have been considered. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claim 1, 3, 12, 18, and 19 are amended.
This action is made Final.
Response to Remarks
Claim Rejections
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach a universal support without modifications to the support. However, another embodiment of Zak does teach the newly amended claims. Specifically, Zak teaches a fixture in a non-engaged orientation is capable of supporting different types of pieces which fit into the fixture and wherein the support are not modified. Accordingly, the newly amended claims necessitate a new ground of rejection, as further detailed below.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Koscielski et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 20200061759 A1), referred to as Koscielski herein.
Zak (US 2018/0111239 A1), hereinafter known as Zak.
Schonlau et al. (Germany Patent Application Publication DE 102015001258 A1), referred to as Schonlau herein.
Oshel et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 20200009634 A1), referred to as Oshel herein.
Spicer et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 20150336271 A1), referred to as Spicer herein.
Kilibarda et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 20190135549 A1), referred to as Kilibarda herein.
Ghanem et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 20200130189 A1), referred to as Ghanem herein.
Toeniskoetter et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 20190185085 A1), referred to as Toeniskoetter herein.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koscielski in view of Zak.
Regarding independent claim 1, Koscielski discloses “A flexible assembling system (Koscielski, at ¶ [0003], disclose the production of complex assemblies.), comprising:
at least one part fixture ... (Examiner notes that part fixture described in the independent claims could be broadly interpreted as any support fixture, gripper, or holder for a part or a workpiece. Koscielski, at ¶¶ [0047]-[0048], describes two types of fixtures that equivalent to the part fixture, first one is a gripper of the high-speed robot as depicted at Fig. 1, and the other one is a transfer pins for engaging a hole in the workpiece.);
at least one tool adapted to selectively perform at least one predetermined process on each of said plurality of predetermined parts (id. at ¶ [0046], describes a welding system includes first and second conveyors feed different parts into a robot, the robot transfers the parts from the conveyors to welding machines within a welding station.);
at least one position monitoring system adapted to selectively ... locate the position of each of said plurality of predetermined parts, and/or the position of predetermined features of each of said plurality of predetermined parts, supported on said at least one part fixture ... (id. at ¶ [0051], The high-speed robot is programmed to properly grasp the workpiece W from a station at the unload end of the drag conveyor and transition it to an attitude and position necessary to engage with the welding machine, since the tooling uses a simple transfer pin 110, there is no requirement beyond programming, for tooling or tool set-up to accommodate different workpieces.); and
at least one robot adapted to process said location and selectively operably retrieve ... and hold each of said plurality of predetermined parts during tool processing, said at least one robot being programable to selectively process any shaped plurality of predetermined parts (id. at ¶¶ [0052]-[0053], the high-speed robot and the welding machine are coordinated by a control system to engage the workpiece W with the welding machine as quickly as possible so the welding process can be completed and the completed assembly discharged from the welding system, the size and configuration of the welding system are suited to the range of assemblies to be welded.).”
Koscielski does not explicitly teach but Zak teaches:
including at least two supports fixed to a base so that at least one part fixture is compatible with a variety of different product without modifications to or movement of the at least two supports relative to the base, to operably support a plurality of predetermined different shaped parts (Zak: Fig. 3A and ¶[0042]; Zak teaches a fixture in a non-engaged orientation that is shown in Fig. 3A as containing supports on the left and right of part 267. This non-engaged orientation is capable of supporting different types of pieces which fit into the fixture.)
... identify and ... independent of the location of the at least one part fixture ... each of said plurality of predetermined parts from said at least one part fixture ... (Zak: ¶[0036]-¶[0040]; Zak teaches the flexible fixture engaging with the workpiece based on the sensed workpiece.)
Koscielski and Zak are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to fixtures in an assembly line. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine accommodating different workpieces in an assembly line as taught in Koscielski with a flexible fixture as taught in Zak. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Koscielski to include teachings of Zak, because the combination would allow supporting various types of workpieces, as suggested by Zak: ¶[0025].
Regarding claim 2, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. Examiner notes that corresponding concept is found in the page 6, lines 24-28 of original specification. Even though Koscielski does not explicitly teaches “wherein the at least one part fixture is not CNC made, laser made or machined.”, Koscielski further teaches, at ¶ [0049] and [0051], the transfer pin is simple and having predetermined length, therefore, there is no indication of the transfer pin should be CNC made, laser made or machined. And furthermore, Koscielski teaches substantially similar flexibility of the simple fixture at ¶ [0052], and the welding machine includes provisions, such as the float assemblies illustrated in FIGS. 7A-9, for accommodating some misalignment of the workpiece due to variation of the attitude of the workpiece on the drag conveyor and positioning error of the high-speed robot plus any positioning error due to variations in the workpiece W, or movement of the workpiece W in the gripping device of the high-speed robot during the workpiece transfer.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Koscielski’s system with at least one part fixture is not CNC made, laser made or machined because of the simple transfer pin, there is no requirement beyond programming, for tooling or tool set-up to accommodate different workpieces (Koscielski, at ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Zak further teaches “wherein the at least one part fixture is adapted for variously shaped predetermined products and is not limited to a single product, where the variously shaped products are received on the at least two supports without moving the at least two supports relative to the base. (Zak: Fig. 3A and ¶[0042]; Zak teaches a fixture in a non-engaged orientation that is shown in Fig. 3A as containing supports on the left and right of part 267. This non-engaged orientation is capable of supporting different types of pieces which fit into the fixture.)
Regarding claim 5, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. Koscielski further teaches “wherein the at least one tool is a punching or welding tool (Koscielski, at ¶ [0055], describes the welding machine includes a welding gun.), wherein said at least one tool is changeable in said flexible assembling system (Koscielski, at ¶ [0054], it could be configured to weld projection weld studs, to weld by other means such as laser welding, or to perform other processes such as assembly. The versatility of the welding system can be expanded by incorporating multiple welding machines that weld different sized fasteners F (e.g., FIGS. 5A-6B) or different types of operations.).”
Regarding claim 8, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. Koscielski further teaches “wherein said at least one robot includes a flex hand adapted to hold each of said plurality of predetermined parts (Examiner notes that “a flex hand” is found at page 9 and Fig. 7 of original specification, however, there is lack of definition of the flex hand, and the figure does not contain a detailed illustration for the flex hand. Therefore, the examiner interprets the flex hand as a holding gripper of the part. Koscielski, at ¶ [0052], describes a gripping device of the high speed robot or robot gripper as described at ¶¶ [0063] and [0067], and further at ¶ [0076], if there is an additional fastener or fasteners to be welded, or the mass of the weldment is too much, the high-speed robot will continue to hold the workpiece W, then the welding process is completed to secure the fastener to the workpiece W.).”
Regarding claim 15, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. Koscielski further teaches “wherein the flexible assembling system operably incorporates a production line with a plurality of automated stations (Koscielski, at ¶ [0020], a method of manufacturing an assembly including the steps of loading a part into an assembly station and permitting the assembly station to float relative to the part.), each of said plurality of automated stations including a respective one of: said at least one robot; said at least one tool; said at least one part position monitoring system; and said at least one part fixture (id. at ¶ [0047], welding system for high-rate production in more detail that includes a drag conveyor, high-speed robot, welding machine, unload chute, and control system.), wherein said plurality of predetermined parts are selectively operably advanced through said plurality of automated stations (id. at ¶ [0046], The robot transfers the parts from the conveyors to welding machines, the versatility of the welding system can be expanded by incorporating multiple welding machines that weld different sized fasteners F (e.g., FIGS. 5A-6B) or different types of operations as described at ¶ [0054].).”
Regarding claim 16, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1 and its dependent claim 15. Koscielski further teaches “further comprising at least one advancing system adapted to operably move each of said at least one part fixtures supporting said plurality of predetermined parts, respectively, through said plurality of automated stations at least one predetermined speed depending at least on predetermined processing requirements at each of said plurality of automated stations and a production volume demand (Examiner notes that current claim limitation describes operating system with a predetermined production speed to meet certain productivity demand. Koscielski, at ¶¶ [0094]-[0095] describes substantially similar demand and meeting it by proceeding at the maximum production rate of the welding machine using high speed robot while reducing complexity to minimize downtime and capital cost, the maximizing the production rate allows the capital cost of the welding machine or assembly processes to be amortized over more assemblies.).”
Regarding claim 17, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. Koscielski further teaches “wherein said at least one predetermined process is includes one or more of punching, bracketing, aperture creation, part insertion, clip installation, sensor installation, park sensor installation, park sensor hole punch, welding, and combinations thereof (Koscielski, at ¶ [0045], system provides low-cost automation to weld fasteners, or secure other parts such as pins, clips, or brackets to sheet metal stampings at high speeds.).”
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koscielski in view of Zak in view of Oshel.
Regarding claim 6, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Koscielski does not explicitly teach “wherein said at least one tool is a C-flame punch and die tool”. Examiner interprets the C-frame as objected the claim above.
Oshel is in the same field of a system and method for flexible manufacturing (Oshel, at ¶ [0002]) that the tools may include a press coupled to the C-frame and configured for applying an enhanced press force to the workpiece on a pallet (id. at ¶¶ [0058]-[0059]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Koscielski with at least one tool is a C-frame press as taught by Oshel because quick-exchange tools are demountably installed onto the C-frame as needed via a tool exchanger (Oshel, at ¶ [0065]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koscielski in view of Zak in view of Schonlau.
Regarding claim 7, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Koscielski does not explicitly teach “wherein said at least one tool is a sonic weld tool.”
Schonlau is in the same field of a production plant on which various assemblies can be manufactured, comprising handling apparatus equipped with a gripping system, wherein each assembly is assigned at least one specific workpiece holder (60) and/or at least one specific tool (Schonlau, at Abstract) that a workstation or a machine or equipment comprising an ultrasonic welding station (Schonlau, at ¶ [0010]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Koscielski’s system with at least one tool is a sonic weld tool as taught by Schonlau because use of known technique such as ultrasonic welding to improve similar system in the same way.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koscielski in view of Zak in view of Spicer.
Regarding claim 9, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Koscielski does not explicitly teach “wherein said at least one robot includes at least one clamp system including at least one bean bag clamp with vacuum applied adapted for additional holding of each of said plurality of predetermined parts in a predetermined location.”
Spicer is in the same field of a system and a method for component locating during assembly of assembling multiple component items (Spicer, at ¶ [0002]) that a system and a method for component locating during assembly of assembling multiple component items, the support is a reconfigurable flexible container defining a cavity filled with granules, similar to a bean bag, a vacuum supply is operatively placed in fluid communication with the cavity when the controller actuates an openable and closable valve to open the valve, a sample first component or part can be pressed against the container while the vacuum acts on the cavity to remove air from the cavity, the granules are pulled against one another and against the component due to the vacuum, and conform to the shape of the outer surface of the component, a recess formed in the container thus conforms to the component sufficiently to support the component for subsequent stages of the method as described at ¶ [0146] and as depicted at Fig. 7.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Koscielski’s system with a clamp system including bean bag clamp with vacuum applied for additional holding of pars in a predetermined location as taught by Spicer because it could be reconfigurable to a different component having a different shape as component is pressed against the flexible container (Spicer, at ¶ [0146]).
Regarding claim 13, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. Koscielski in view of Zak further teaches “wherein said at least one position monitoring system includes … and at least one second monitoring device that includes a scanner operably attached to each respective robot adapted to selectively provide a final determination of location of each respective part as well as part processing position for said at least one tool to perform said at least one predetermined process on the part (Koscielski, at ¶ [0047], The high-speed robot is positioned in close proximity to the unload end of the drag conveyor where it will grasp a workpiece and the welding machine to which it will present the workpiece for welding, and at ¶ [0051], the high-speed robot is programmed to properly grasp the workpiece W from a station at the unload end of the drag conveyor and transition it to an attitude and position necessary to engage with the welding machine, the sensor(s) can be used to track the electrode and welding pin movement to monitor situations that might generate an error leading to a defective part or a fault in the welding system, for example, if the pin locating the fastener is depressed when the welding gun closes on the workpiece presented by the robot, the workpiece may not have a clearance hole, or the workpiece may have slipped in the robot gripper too far for the floating action of the welding unit to accommodate as described at ¶ [0063].).” However, Koscielski does not explicitly teach “at least one first monitoring device that includes a three dimensional vision system adapted to selectively provide an overall view of the location of each of said plurality of parts supported on each of said plurality of at least one part fixture,”
Spicer is in the same field of a system and a method for component locating during assembly of assembling multiple component items (Spicer, at ¶ [0002]) that
the components 10, 12A, 12B, 12C are considered to be geometrically set in position relative to one another, the final structural connections of the assembly are carried out, such as by welding with laser or resistance spot welds, then the assembly with process joints may be inspected by scanning with a three-dimensional vision system at a scanning station (id. at ¶ [0166]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Koscielski’s system with the monitoring device includes a three dimensional vision system provide an overall view of the location of the part as taught by Spicer because a remote laser welding head has a finite window of coverage (due to limitations on the angle of the mirror) (e.g. 1 sq. m window), additional heads are used as needed after the inspection to ensure complete coverage of welds over the part surface (Spicer, at ¶ [0165]).
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koscielski in view of Zak in view of Kilibarda.
Regarding claim 10, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Koscielski does not explicitly teach “wherein said at least one position monitoring system includes at least one first monitoring device adapted to selectively provide an overall view on the location of each of said plurality of predetermined parts.”
Kilibarda is in the same field of systems in moving components, holding fixtures, partially assembled products and other items in an industrial assembly line (Kilibarda, at ¶ [0002]) that one or more sensors may be used to determine the location of the carrier, or of the arms and/or part supports, to monitor the respective positions of the carrier, respective arms, part supports or the workpiece. For example, on visual determination that the workpiece is engaged with the second build device, the part support actuators could be actuated (or opened) allowing disengagement of the workpiece from the first fixture allowing the lift device to raise or otherwise move the first fixture out of the way so predetermined processing can take place on the workpiece, for example by programmable robots (id. at ¶ [0056]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Koscielski’s system with a monitoring device to selectively provide an overall view on the location of each parts as taught by Kilibarda because it enables the transport device or carrier course or path of travel can be altered “on-the-fly” by receipt of data signal instructions which change or alter the path of travel from a prior destination to an alternate destination to pick-up or transport materials to better support plant or assembly operations (Kilibarda, at ¶ [0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Koscielski in view of Kilibarda teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1 and its dependent claim 10. Koscielski further teaches “wherein said at least one position monitoring system further includes at least one second monitoring device operably attached to said at least one robot adapted to selectively provide a final location and positioning of said at least one robot relative to said part (Koscielski, at ¶ [0051], The high-speed robot is programmed to properly grasp the workpiece W from a station at the unload end of the drag conveyor and transition it to an attitude and position necessary to engage with the welding machine, the sensor(s) can be used to track the electrode and welding pin movement to monitor situations that might generate an error leading to a defective part or a fault in the welding system, for example, if the pin locating the fastener is depressed when the welding gun closes on the workpiece presented by the robot, the workpiece may not have a clearance hole, or the workpiece may have slipped in the robot gripper too far for the floating action of the welding unit to accommodate as described at ¶ [0063].).”
Regarding claim 14, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Koscielski does not explicitly teach “wherein the at least one part fixture is operably coupled to a moveable base cart operable to convey said at least one part fixture through at least one station.”
Kilibarda is in the same field of systems in moving components, holding fixtures, partially assembled products and other items in an industrial assembly line (Kilibarda, at ¶ [0002]) that the transport systems for exemplary use in moving or transporting components, holding fixtures (id. at ¶ [0002]), the transport device transfers a progressively-assembled workpiece through several workstations positioned along, or in communication with, the path of travel (id. at ¶ [0008]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Koscielski’s system with a part fixture is coupled to a movable base cart to convey the part fixture through workstations as taught by Kilibarda because it would be advantageous to employ the use of AGVs, or AGV-like autonomous devices, to directly position components at workstations without use of large infrastructure-intensive devices like conventional pallet conveyors (Kilibarda, at ¶ [0007]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koscielski in view of Zak in view of Ghanem.
Regarding claim 12, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Koscielski does not explicitly teach “wherein said at least one position monitoring system incorporates artificial intelligence in combination with said at least one robot, wherein said at least one position monitoring system includes one or more of vision systems lidars, lasers, scanners, three dimensional vision, three dimensional scanners, and any combinations thereof.”
Ghanem is in the same field of a reconfigurable, fixtureless manufacturing system and method assisted by learning A.I. software (Ghanem, at ¶ [0002]) that AI driven reconfigurable manufacturing system, the system comprise a machine vision system, the machine vision system comprise one or more cameras, lasers, radar, proximity detectors, ultrasonic, photo eyes, some combination thereof, or the like (id. at ¶ [0033]), it is feasible to install the executable learning A.I. in an industrial PC, a camera, as part of robot software directly or indirectly (id. at ¶ [0038]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Koscielski’s system with position monitoring system incorporates artificial intelligence in combination with robot, the position monitoring system comprise lasers, photo eyes or the like as taught by Ghanem because using the geometry datum setting A.I., allows the joining robots and the material handling robots to be arranged in various ways, depending on the complexity of the part assemblies in order to handle a complete parts family without changing of the physical layout and removing part dedicated tooling figures, around an assembly area (Ghanem, at ¶ [0034]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koscielski in view of Zak in view of Toeniskoetter.
Regarding claim 18, Koscielski in view of Zak teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Koscielski does not explicitly teach “wherein said plurality of predetermined parts are vehicle parts including one or more of a rear fascia, a front fascia, a rocker panel, a front rocker a panel, a panel, a bumper, and combinations thereof.”
Toeniskoetter is in the same field of vehicle body closure panel production (Toeniskoetter, at ¶ [0002]) that the modular production line system may at inception include a subset of work cells for producing a first vehicle closure panel model, the outer roller flanging and laser welding cell further includes outer panel racks that store outer panels to be joined with inner panels, and final assembly racks that store finished, finally assembled workpieces (id. at ¶ [0032]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Koscielski’s system with the plurality of predetermined parts are vehicle parts including vehicle panels as taught by Toeniskoetter because a production line process for production of parts for multiple vehicle models (e.g., five models) is built at its inception to accommodate all of the models, but a modular, flexible, multi-model production line system and method that can add additional product/models to the line over time without the need to reserve production facility floor space and production equipment in advance (Toeniskoetter, at ¶¶ [0002]-[0003]).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118