DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 3-5 and 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2026-04-27. Applicant’s arguments concerning the search burden are not persuasive. This is not found persuasive because the method and apparatus claims may diverge during prosecution and would impose a search burden. Hypothetically, if the two claims were amended throughout prosecution to include all the relevant limitations and allowable subject matter was indicated, rejoinder might be appropriate, but only the elected claims will be examined.
Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 1-2 and 6-8 being examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevak (US 2019/0221800 to Sevak et al.) in view of Bania (US 2014/0069335 to Bania et al.) and Peterson (US 2021/0210905 to Peterson et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Sevak teaches:
a battery assembly 14 with components behind a panel cover 112 with identifying marks, including a fastening boundary along a removal zone of the cover, and serviceable components behind the cover (¶ 0053, 0063-0066, Figs. 3 and 4)
a method of opening the cover and servicing the components, including removal (¶ 0062)
PNG
media_image1.png
276
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
352
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sevak does not explicitly teach:
detecting via a sensor the position of the cover’s boundary indicating its removal zone
adjusting via a controller a path of a removal tool based on the sensor data
actuating removal tool along the adjust path to separate the removal zone from the remainder of the enclosure/cover
Bania, however, from the same field of invention, regarding robotic work on vehicle components, teaches a robotic arm 50 that opens a panel door (¶ 0050) to allow access to further tool components for servicing the vehicle. Peterson, meanwhile, also regarding robotic work on vehicle components, teaches using a robotic installer for an electrical connector component, capable of connecting and disconnecting electronic components (abstract, etc.). Peterson further teaches that visual scanning systems (with sensors) were known in the art to orient the robotic installer, and were known to provide sense data to orient and guide the connecting/disconnecting tools (¶ 0003, 0023). It would have been obvious to automate the servicing process disclosed in Sevak in order to improve throughput and reliability, as the vehicle art already taught robotic processes for opening panel doors and manipulating electronic components. See MPEP § 2144.04. It further would have been obvious to implement a visual detection system, which inherently includes “sensors” that interpret visual “data” to identify a removal zone or work area, and then to control removal tools along tool paths to effect the desired service, since such actions were foundational robotic process elements already known in the art, as suggested by Bania and Peterson.
Regarding Claim 8, Sevak and Peterson render obvious:
service of a battery electronic component, including an electronic connection
Claims 2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sevak (US 2019/0221800 to Sevak et al.) in view of Bania (US 2014/0069335 to Bania et al.) and Peterson (US 2021/0210905 to Peterson et al.), in further view of Vargo (US Patent No. 11,861,276 to Vargo et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Sevak et al. do not explicitly teach:
a pattern printed onto the cover, wherein the method comprises actuating the removal tool along the pattern to remove the cover panel
Vargo, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a system for automated lug nut removal (abstract), teaches providing certain “patterns, colors, shapes, or a combination thereof” to help the robotic apparatus in determining the positions of the lug nuts that are to be worked on, the patterns being identified by e.g. a camera (column 9 lines 6-39). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to provide a pattern to guide the robotic apparatus so that it can control the robotic removal tool(s) to accurately removal the cover panel and access the electronic components, as the prior art already taught using such patterned markers with robotic systems.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Sevak et al. do not explicitly teach:
three-dimensional coordinate data of the panel cover/enclosure
Peterson renders obvious a vision system (¶ 0003, 0023). Vargo, in addition, teaches visual camera systems (column 9), as well as the use of three-dimensional coordinate data to position the removal tool(s) (column 10, lines 32-38). It would have been obvious to use visual systems with three-dimensional coordinates, to improve identification and manipulation, as was known in the robotic apparatus arts. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent No. 9,246,148
US Patent No. 11,129,318
US 2021/0114408
US 2022/0388115
US 2023/0163400
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights