Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on March 4, 2026 was received has been entered. Claims 1 and 21 were amended. Claim 17 was cancelled. Claim 20 was previously withdrawn. Claims 1-16, 18-19, and 21 are in the application and pending examination.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
This application has been amended and no longer includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” . As a result, these terms are no longer being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations which have been deleted are: “first opening/closing member “ in claim 11, “second opening/closing member “ in claim 14, and “first opening/closing member “ in claim 19.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “base fixed to be an immovable state”.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner is interpreting “door” as follows :
“a movable structure for opening or closing an entrance, as to a building or room, or giving access to a closet, cupboard, etc.: most doors turn on hinges, slide in grooves, or revolve on an axis “
Based on this definition Examiner is interpreting “door” in the claim limitations to reading on the following structures in the prior art: the side of the cars, the hood of the car which opens on a hinge, and the trunk lid (tailgate) which opens and closes as doors.
This definition is obtained from the Collins Dictionary.
Information Disclosure Statement
One information disclosure statement (IDS) has been received in this application with one reference in total. Applicant is reminded of the requirements under 37 CFR 1.56(a) for each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application having a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 1 and 21 recite:
“ base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area so as not to move relative to the painting area …a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 14-15, and 18-19 for reciting: “base fixed to be an immovable state” is withdrawn based on the following amendment in claim 1: “base fixed to be in an immovable state”.
Claims 1 and 21 recite:
“at least a portion of the horizontal articulated arm is disposed at a position lower than a height of a lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer, and a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door”.
It is unclear if the second occurrence of “ a portion of the horizontal articulated arm” and the second occurrence of “ a position below the lower end of the door”.
Clarification is requested.
For the purpose of claim interpretation, Examiner is interpreting the claim as follows:
“at least a portion of the horizontal articulated arm is disposed at a position lower than a height of a lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer, and [[a]] the portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to [[a]] the position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180221904 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,014,843 to Linton et al (hereinafter Linton) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190337003 A1 to Scott J. Clifford (hereinafter Clifford) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 1 and 21.
Claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180221904 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20130034660 A1 to Koyanagi et al (hereinafter Koyanagi) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190337003 A1 to Scott J. Clifford (hereinafter Clifford) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100030381 A1 to Scott J. Clifford and Paul D. Copioli (hereinafter Copioli).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshino teaches a painting system comprising: a conveyer (210) configured to convey a vehicle body (500) having a door (510:510LF, 510LR, 510RF, 510RR ; 520, 530) in a painting area; a first operation robot (20 :20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2; 40: 40a, 40b) including a first base (30) fixed in the painting area, a holding tool (20E, 40E) capable of holding the door (510, 520, 530) , and a horizontal articulated arm (20: 21, 22, 23, 40:41, 42, 43, 44, 45) attached to the first base (30) and provided with a plurality of rotational axes ( A23, A22, A21 shown in Fig. 5) each extending along in a vertical direction, the horizontal arm (20: 21, 22, 23, 40:41, 42, 43, 44, 45) being configured to move the holding tool (20E, 40E), and the first operation robot being configured to open the door (510, 520, 530: open/close member) of the vehicle body that is being conveyed by the conveyer (210); and a first painting robot (10, 10R1, 10R2, 10L1, 10L2) configured to paint an inside (inner-plate) of the vehicle body in a state where the door (510, 520, 530) is opened by the first operation robot (20 :20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2; 40: 40a, 40b) wherein in a vertical direction, at least a portion of the horizontal articulated arm (20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2) is disposed at a position lower than a height of a lower end of the door (See Yoshino Fig.1) . (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Further regarding claim 1, Yoshino does not explicitly teach, where the height of the lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer.
Koyanagi is directed to a carrier for transferring a substrate for spraying.
Koyanagi teaches the height of the lower end of the door (121) is maintained by the conveyer. (See Koyanagi, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6-14; paragraph 45)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the height of the lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer, because Koyanagi teaches this would enable the painting robot and the open door robot to be overlapped with each other and the inner portion of the door can be painted while the door is kept in an open state. (See Koyanagi, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6-14; paragraph 45.)
Further regarding claim 1, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area so as not to move relative to the painting area.
Clifford is directed to painting robots in a paint booth.
Clifford teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalent configuration for a robot in a painting booth. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area so as not to move relative to the painting area as an art recognized equivalent configuration for a robot in a painting booth. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Further regarding claim 1, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door.
Copioli is directed to painting robots in a paint booth.
Copioli teaches a portion of the horizontal articulated arm (portion of 22 below 24 in Fig. 1) extends to a position below the lower end of the door (24) so as to open the door. (See Copioli, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6E, paragraphs 20-21, 29-30, 32-46, and 51-53. )
Examiner is considering maintaining the door in an open position to be equivalent “to open the door”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door, because Copioli teaches this would enable the door (swing panel 24) to be placed in a desired position so that the painting operations can occur in a pre-programmed sequence. (See Copioli, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6E, paragraphs 20-21, 29-30, 32-46, and 51-53. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 21, Yoshino teaches a painting system comprising: a conveyer (210) configured to convey a vehicle body (500) having a door (510:510LF, 510LR, 510RF, 510RR ; 520, 530) in a painting area; a first operation robot (20 :20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2; 40: 40a, 40b) including a first base (30) fixed to a structure that makes up the painting area, a holding tool (20E, 40E) capable of holding the door (510, 520, 530) , and a horizontal articulated arm (20: 21, 22, 23, 40:41, 42, 43, 44, 45) attached to the first base (30) and provided with a plurality of rotational axes (A23, A22, A21 in Fig. 5) each extending along in a vertical direction, the horizontal arm (20: 21, 22, 23, 40:41, 42, 43, 44, 45) being and configured to move the holding tool (20E, 40E), and the first operation robot being configured to open the door (510, 520, 530: open/close member) of the vehicle body that is being conveyed by the conveyer (210); and
a first painting robot (10, 10R1, 10R2, 10L1, 10L2) configured to paint an inside (inner-plate) of the vehicle body in a state where the door (510, 520, 530) is opened by the first operation robot (20 :20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2; 40: 40a, 40b) wherein in the vertical direction, at least a portion of the horizontal articulated arm (20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2) is disposed at a position lower than a height of a lower end of the door (See Yoshino Fig.1) . (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Further regarding claim 21, Yoshino does not explicitly teach, where the height of the lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer.
Koyanagi is directed to a carrier for transferring a substrate for spraying.
Koyanagi teaches the height of the lower end of the door (121) is maintained by the conveyer. (See Koyanagi, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6-14; paragraph 45)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the height of the lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer, because Koyanagi teaches this would enable the painting robot and the open door robot can be overlapped with each other and the inner portion of the door can be painted while the door is kept in an open state. (See Koyanagi, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6-14; paragraph 45.)
Further regarding claim 21, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area so as not to move relative to the painting area.
Clifford teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalent configuration for a robot in a painting booth. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area so as not to move relative to the painting area as an art recognized equivalent configuration for a robot in a painting booth. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Further regarding claim 21, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door.
Copioli is directed to painting robots in a paint booth.
Copioli teaches a portion of the horizontal articulated arm (portion of 22 below 24 in Fig. 1) extends to a position below the lower end of the door (24) so as to open the door. (See Copioli, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6E, paragraphs 20-21, 29-30, 32-46, and 51-53. )
Examiner is considering maintaining the door in an open position to be equivalent “to open the door”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door, because Copioli teaches this would enable the door (swing panel 24) to be placed in a desired position so that the painting operations can occur in a pre-programmed sequence. (See Copioli, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6E, paragraphs 20-21, 29-30, 32-46, and 51-53. )
The previous rejection of claims 2 -19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180221904 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,014,843 to Linton et al (hereinafter Linton) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190337003 A1 to Scott J. Clifford (hereinafter Clifford) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140074289 A1 to Xiao et al (hereinafter Xiao) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 2 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180221904 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20130034660 A1 to Koyanagi et al (hereinafter Koyanagi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190337003 A1 to Scott J. Clifford (hereinafter Clifford) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100030381 A1 to Scott J. Clifford and Paul D. Copioli (hereinafter Copioli) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140074289 A1 to Xiao et al (hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshino teaches the horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) includes: a first arm (21, 41) attached to the first base of the first operation robot to rotate around a first axis (A21, A41) extending along the vertical direction, and extending away from the first axis, and a second arm (22, 42) attached to the first arm to rotate around a second axis (A22, A42) parallel to the first axis, and extending away from the second axis. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 85-87, 170, 172, and Fig. 5 . )
Further regarding claim 2, Yoshino does not explicitly teach wherein in the vertical direction, the second arm is disposed at a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door.
Xiao teaches a method for training a robot arm to improve control of the robot arm. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44)
Xiao teaches the controller can receive signals from the conveyor to adjust the position of the robot tool relative to the position of the workpiece on the conveyor. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 10 and 27)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein in the vertical direction, the second arm is disposed at a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door, because Xiao teaches mapping the use of the robot arm against a range of motions would enable the avoid redundant axis problems and sources of instability around a singularity. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44)
Regarding claim 3, Yoshino teaches the horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) includes: a first arm (21, 41) attached to the first base of the first operation robot to rotate around a first axis (A21, A41) extending along the vertical direction among the plurality of rotational axes, and extending away from the first axis, and a second arm (22, 42) attached to the first arm to rotate around a second axis (A22, A42) parallel to the first axis among the plurality of rotational axes , and extending away from the second axis; a third arm (portion of arm located between 22b and 22a in 20,44 ) attached to the second arm to rotate around a third axis (A23) parallel to the first axis among the plurality of rotational axes , and extending away from the third axis. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 85-87, 170, 172, and Fig. 5 . )
Further regarding claim 3, Yoshino does not explicitly teach wherein in the vertical direction, the third arm (portion of arm located between 22b and 22a in 20,44 ) is disposed at a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door.
Xiao teaches the controller can receive signals from the conveyor to adjust the position of the robot tool relative to the position of the workpiece on the conveyor. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 10 and 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different arms and different positions of the third arm including wherein in the vertical direction, the third arm is disposed at a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper location for the third arm relative to the substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal mapping of the robot arm to avoid instability due to singularities. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44)
Further regarding claim 4, Yoshino does not explicitly teach wherein in the vertical direction, the second and third arms are arranged at positions lower than the height of the lower end of the door.
Xiao teaches the controller can receive signals from the conveyor to adjust the position of the robot tool relative to the position of the workpiece on the conveyor in a spraying application. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 10 and 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different arms and different positions of the third arm including wherein in the vertical direction, the second and third arms are arranged at positions lower than the height of the lower end of the door through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper location for the third arm relative to the substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal mapping of the robot arm to avoid instability due to singularities. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44.)
Regarding claim 5, Yoshino teaches a second operation robot (20R2, 20L2, 40) including a second base (30, 40B) fixed in the painting area, a second holding tool (20E, 40E) capable of holding the door, and a second horizontal articulated arm that moves the second holding tool, wherein the first base (30R1) of the first operation robot (20R1) and the second base of the second operation robot are arranged in a direction (along P2) in which the vehicle body is conveyed by the conveyer. (See Yoshino, Fig. 2. )
Regarding claim 5, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshino teaches a distance between the first base of the first operation robot (30 on left side of Fig. on side near 500, 40a) and the second base (30 on right side of Fig. 2 on side of reference numeral P2, 40b) of the second operation robot (30) is equal to or longer than a sum of an arm length of the first arm and an arm length of the second arm. (See Yoshino, Fig. 2. )
Regarding claim 7, Yoshino teaches a second operation robot (20L2, 20R2, 40 on right in Fig. 2) including a second base (30, 40b) fixed in the painting area, a second holding tool (20E, 40E) capable of holding the door, and a second horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) that moves the second holding tool, wherein the first painting robot includes a base (10b) fixed in the first painting area, and in a direction in which the vehicle body (500) is conveyed by the conveyer, the base (10b) of the first painting robot is disposed between the base of the operation robot (30: base of 20L1, 20R1, 40a) and the second base (30: base of 20L2, 20R2, 40b) of the second operation robot. (See Yoshino, Fig. 2. )
Regarding claim 7, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshino teaches the first painting robot includes a first base (10b) fixed in the painting area, and in the vertical direction, the first base (30: base of 20L1, 20R1 20L2, 20R2; 40b) of the first operation robot is disposed at a position lower than the first base of the first painting robot (10b). (See Yoshino, Fig. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 9, Yoshino teaches the painting robot includes an ejector (10e) capable of ejecting paint, and a vertical articulated arm (10) that changes a position and a posture of the ejector, and in the vertical direction, (See Yoshino, Fig. 4. )
Yoshino does not explicitly teach the ejector is movable to a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different arms and different positions of the tool including the ejector is movable to a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper location for the third arm relative to the substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal mapping of the robot arm to avoid instability due to singularities. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44.)
Regarding claim 10, Yoshino teaches in the vertical direction, the ejector operates at a position higher than at least a portion of the horizontal articulated arm. (See Yoshino, Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 11, Yoshino teaches the vehicle body includes a tailgate (530) that is opened and closed by pivoting around a horizontal axis, and the painting system further comprises an opener robot (40, 40) including a base (40b, 40b) fixed in the painting area, and configured to open the tailgate (530) by moving up a portion of the tailgate (530) in an immovable state where the vehicle body (500) is being conveyed by the conveyer (210). (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 12, Yoshino teaches the vertical direction, the first base of the first operation robot is disposed at a position lower than the first base of the first opener robot. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 13, Yoshino teaches the painting robot (10) includes a first base (10b) fixed in the painting area, and the first base of the first opener robot (30, 40a, 40b) and the first base of the painting robot (10) are arranged at different positions in a direction in which the vehicle body is conveyed by the conveyer (210). (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 14, Yoshino teaches the vehicle body further includes a front hood (520) that is opened and closed by pivoting around a horizontal axis, the tailgate (530) is disposed at an upstream side of the front hood (520) in the vehicle body that is being conveyed by the conveyer, the painting system further comprises a second opener robot (40 on right ) including a second base (40b)fixed in the painting area, and configured to open the front hood (520) by moving up a portion of the front hood (520) in a state where the vehicle body is being conveyed by the conveyer, and in a direction in which the vehicle body is conveyed by the conveyer, the first base (40a) of the first opener robot (40) is disposed at an upstream side of the second base (40b) of the second opener robot (40). (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 14, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Clifford teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshino teaches the painting robot (10) includes a first base (10b) fixed in the painting area, and in the direction in which the vehicle body (500) is conveyed by the conveyer (210), the first base (10b) of the first painting robot (10) is disposed between the first base (40a) of the first opener robot and the second base (40b) of the second opener robot. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 15, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a first painting robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Clifford teaches painting robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first painting robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshino teaches a second painting robot (10R2, 10L2) including a second base (10b) fixed in the painting area, and configured to paint an inside of the vehicle body, wherein in the direction in which the vehicle body (500) is conveyed by the conveyer (210) , the second base (10b) of the second painting robot (10R2, 10L2) is disposed between the first base (40a) of the first opener robot and the second base (40b) of the second opener robot , and is disposed at a position different from a position of the first base (40a) of the first painting robot. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 16, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second painting robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Clifford teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second painting robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshino teaches further comprising:
a second operation robot (40 on right in Fig. 2, 20L, 20R2) including a second base (40, 30, 30) fixed in the painting area, a second holding tool (20e, 40e) capable of holding the door (520, 530), and a second horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) that moves the second holding tool; and
a second painting robot (10L2, 10R2) including a second base (10b, 10b) fixed in the painting area, and configured to paint an inside (inner plate) of the vehicle body,
wherein the first painting robot (10L1, 10R1, 10L2, 10R2) includes a first base (10b) fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area,
the second horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) includes a plurality of arms (21, 22, 23; 41, 42, 44) that corresponds to the first arm, the second arm, and the third arm,
the painting area is defined by a pair of side walls (walls on left and right in Fig. 2) that sandwiches the conveyer (210), and the first operation robot (20L1, 20R1, and 40 on left in Fig. 2) and the second operation robot (20L2 and 40 on right in Fig. 2) are arranged between a first side wall (wall at top of Fig. 2) of the pair of side walls and the conveyer, and the first base of the first painting robot (10b of 10L1) and the second base (10b of 10L2) of the second painting robot are fixed to the first side wall (wall at top of Fig. 2). (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 18, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Clifford teaches painting robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second painting robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Clifford teaches painting robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second painting robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshino teaches the vehicle body (500) includes a tailgate (530) that is opened and closed by pivoting around a horizontal axis, and a front hood (520) that is opened and closed by pivoting around a horizontal axis, the first tailgate (530) is disposed at an upstream side of the front hood (520) in the vehicle body that is being conveyed by the conveyer, the painting system further comprises: a first opener robot (40 on left in Fig. 2, 7A-7D) including a first base (40a) fixed in the painting area, and configured to open the tailgate (530) by moving up a portion of the tailgate in a state where the vehicle body (500) is being conveyed by the conveyer; and a second opener robot (40 on right in Fig. 2) including a second base (40b) fixed in the painting area, and configured to open the front hood (520) to move up a portion of the front hood (520) in a state where the vehicle body (500) is being conveyed by the conveyer (210), the first base (40a) of the first opener robot (40 on left in Fig. 2) is fixed to the first side wall or a second side wall (wall at bottom of Fig. 2) of the pair of side walls, and the second base (40b) of the second opener robot is fixed to the first side wall (wall at top of Fig. 2) or the second side wall. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 19, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a first opener robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Clifford teaches painting robots which are mounted in a fixed position are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first painting robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second opener robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Clifford teaches painting robots which are mounted in a fixed position are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second opener robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
The previous rejection of claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180221904 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,014,843 to Linton et al (hereinafter Linton) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210001494 A1 to Ooshima (hereinafter Ooshima) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 1 and 21.
Claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180221904 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100030381 A1 to Scott J. Clifford and Paul D. Copioli (hereinafter Copioli) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20130034660 A1 to Koyanagi et al (hereinafter Koyanagi) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210001494 A1 to Ooshima (hereinafter Ooshima).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshino teaches a painting system comprising: a conveyer (210) configured to convey a vehicle body (500) having a door (510:510LF, 510LR, 510RF, 510RR ; 520, 530) in a painting area; a first operation robot (20 :20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2; 40: 40a, 40b) including a first base (30) fixed in the painting area, a holding tool (20E, 40E) capable of holding the door (510, 520, 530) , and a horizontal articulated arm (20: 21, 22, 23, 40:41, 42, 43, 44, 45) attached to the first base (30) and provided with a plurality of rotational axes ( A23, A22, A21 shown in Fig. 5) each extending along in a vertical direction, the horizontal arm (20: 21, 22, 23, 40:41, 42, 43, 44, 45) being configured to move the holding tool (20E, 40E), and the first operation robot being configured to open the door (510, 520, 530: open/close member) of the vehicle body that is being conveyed by the conveyer (210); and a first painting robot (10, 10R1, 10R2, 10L1, 10L2) configured to paint an inside (inner-plate) of the vehicle body in a state where the door (510, 520, 530) is opened by the first operation robot (20 :20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2; 40: 40a, 40b) wherein in a vertical direction, at least a portion of the horizontal articulated arm (20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2) is disposed at a position lower than a height of a lower end of the door (See Yoshino Fig.1) . (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Further regarding claim 1, Yoshino does not explicitly teach, where the height of the lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer.
Koyanagi is directed to a carrier for transferring a substrate for spraying.
Koyanagi teaches the height of the lower end of the door (121) is maintained by the conveyer. (See Koyanagi, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6-14; paragraph 45)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the height of the lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer, because Koyanagi teaches this would enable the painting robot and the open door robot can be overlapped with each other and the inner portion of the door can be painted while the door is kept in an open state. (See Koyanagi, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6-14; paragraph 45.)
Further regarding claim 1, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area so as not to move relative to the painting area.
Ooshima is directed to painting robots in a paint booth.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area so as not to move relative to the painting area as an art recognized equivalent configuration for a robot in a painting booth. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
Further regarding claim 1, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door.
Copioli teaches a portion of the horizontal articulated arm (portion of 22 below 24 in Fig. 1) extends to a position below the lower end of the door (24) so as to open the door. (See Copioli, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6E, paragraphs 20-21, 29-30, 32-46, and 51-53. )
Examiner is considering maintaining the door in an open position to be equivalent “to open the door”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door, because Copioli teaches this would enable the door (swing panel 24) to be placed in a desired position so that the painting operations can occur in a pre-programmed sequence. (See Copioli, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6E, paragraphs 20-21, 29-30, 32-46, and 51-53. )
Regarding claim 21, Yoshino teaches a painting system comprising: a conveyer (210) configured to convey a vehicle body (500) having a door (510:510LF, 510LR, 510RF, 510RR ; 520, 530) in a painting area; a first operation robot (20 :20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2; 40: 40a, 40b) including a first base (30) fixed to a structure that makes up the painting area, a holding tool (20E, 40E) capable of holding the door (510, 520, 530) , and a horizontal articulated arm (20: 21, 22, 23, 40:41, 42, 43, 44, 45) attached to the first base (30) and provided with a plurality of rotational axes (A23, A22, A21 in Fig. 5) each extending along in a vertical direction, the horizontal arm (20: 21, 22, 23, 40:41, 42, 43, 44, 45) being and configured to move the holding tool (20E, 40E), and the first operation robot being configured to open the door (510, 520, 530: open/close member) of the vehicle body that is being conveyed by the conveyer (210); and
a first painting robot (10, 10R1, 10R2, 10L1, 10L2) configured to paint an inside (inner-plate) of the vehicle body in a state where the door (510, 520, 530) is opened by the first operation robot (20 :20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2; 40: 40a, 40b) wherein in the vertical direction, at least a portion of the horizontal articulated arm (20R1, 20R2, 20L1, 20L2) is disposed at a position lower than a height of a lower end of the door (See Yoshino Fig.1) . (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Further regarding claim 21, Yoshino does not explicitly teach, where the height of the lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer.
Koyanagi teaches the height of the lower end of the door (121) is maintained by the conveyer. (See Koyanagi, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6-14; paragraph 45)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the height of the lower end of the door is maintained by the conveyer, because Koyanagi teaches this would enable the painting robot and the open door robot can be overlapped with each other and the inner portion of the door can be painted while the door is kept in an open state. (See Koyanagi, Abstract, Figs. 1-2 and 6-14; paragraph 45.)
Further regarding claim 21, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area so as not to move relative to the painting area.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent configuration for a robot in a painting booth. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
Further regarding claim 21, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door.
Copioli teaches a portion of the horizontal articulated arm (portion of 22 below 24 in Fig. 1) extends to a position below the lower end of the door (24) so as to open the door. (See Copioli, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6E, paragraphs 20-21, 29-30, 32-46, and 51-53. )
Examiner is considering maintaining the door in an open position to be equivalent “to open the door”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a portion of the horizontal articulated arm extends to a position below the lower end of the door so as to open the door, because Copioli teaches this would enable the door (swing panel 24) to be placed in a desired position so that the painting operations can occur in a pre-programmed sequence. (See Copioli, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 6E, paragraphs 20-21, 29-30, 32-46, and 51-53. )
The previous rejection of claims 2 -19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180221904 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,014,843 to Linton et al (hereinafter Linton) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210001494 A1 to Ooshima (hereinafter Ooshima) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140074289 A1 to Xiao et al (hereinafter Xiao) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 1 and 21.
Claims 2 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180221904 A1 to Yoshino et al (hereinafter Yoshino) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20130034660 A1 to Koyanagi et al (hereinafter Koyanagi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100030381 A1 to Scott J. Clifford and Paul D. Copioli (hereinafter Copioli) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210001494 A1 to Ooshima (hereinafter Ooshima) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20140074289 A1 to Xiao et al (hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshino teaches the horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) includes: a first arm (21, 41) attached to the first base of the first operation robot to rotate around a first axis (A21, A41) extending along the vertical direction, and extending away from the first axis, and a second arm (22, 42) attached to the first arm to rotate around a second axis (A22, A42) parallel to the first axis, and extending away from the second axis. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 85-87, 170, 172, and Fig. 5 . )
Further regarding claim 2, Yoshino does not explicitly teach wherein in the vertical direction, the second arm is disposed at a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door.
Xiao teaches a method for training a robot arm to improve control of the robot arm. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44)
Xiao teaches the controller can receive signals from the conveyor to adjust the position of the robot tool relative to the position of the workpiece on the conveyor. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 10 and 27)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include wherein in the vertical direction, the second arm is disposed at a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door, because Xiao teaches mapping the use of the robot arm against a range of motions would enable the avoid redundant axis problems and sources of instability around a singularity. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44)
Regarding claim 3, Yoshino teaches the horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) includes: a first arm (21, 41) attached to the first base of the first operation robot to rotate around a first axis (A21, A41) extending along the vertical direction among the plurality of rotational axes, and extending away from the first axis, and a second arm (22, 42) attached to the first arm to rotate around a second axis (A22, A42) parallel to the first axis among the plurality of rotational axes , and extending away from the second axis; a third arm (portion of arm located between 22b and 22a in 20,44 ) attached to the second arm to rotate around a third axis (A23) parallel to the first axis among the plurality of rotational axes , and extending away from the third axis. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 85-87, 170, 172, and Fig. 5 . )
Further regarding claim 3, Yoshino does not explicitly teach wherein in the vertical direction, the third arm (portion of arm located between 22b and 22a in 20,44 ) is disposed at a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door.
Xiao teaches the controller can receive signals from the conveyor to adjust the position of the robot tool relative to the position of the workpiece on the conveyor. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 10 and 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different arms and different positions of the third arm including wherein in the vertical direction, the third arm is disposed at a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper location for the third arm relative to the substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal mapping of the robot arm to avoid instability due to singularities. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44)
Further regarding claim 4, Yoshino does not explicitly teach wherein in the vertical direction, the second and third arms are arranged at positions lower than the height of the lower end of the door.
Xiao teaches the controller can receive signals from the conveyor to adjust the position of the robot tool relative to the position of the workpiece on the conveyor in a spraying application. (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 10 and 27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different arms and different positions of the third arm including wherein in the vertical direction, the second and third arms are arranged at positions lower than the height of the lower end of the door through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper location for the third arm relative to the substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal mapping of the robot arm to avoid instability due to singularities. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44.)
Regarding claim 5, Yoshino teaches a second operation robot (20R2, 20L2, 40) including a second base (30, 40B) fixed in the painting area, a second holding tool (20E, 40E) capable of holding the door, and a second horizontal articulated arm that moves the second holding tool, wherein the first base (30R1) of the first operation robot (20R1) and the second base of the second operation robot are arranged in a direction (along P2) in which the vehicle body is conveyed by the conveyer. (See Yoshino, Fig. 2. )
Regarding claim 5, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Clifford teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshino teaches a distance between the first base of the first operation robot (30 on left side of Fig. on side near 500, 40a) and the second base (30 on right side of Fig. 2 on side of reference numeral P2, 40b) of the second operation robot (30) is equal to or longer than a sum of an arm length of the first arm and an arm length of the second arm. (See Yoshino, Fig. 2. )
Regarding claim 7, Yoshino teaches a second operation robot (20L2, 20R2, 40 on right in Fig. 2) including a second base (30, 40b) fixed in the painting area, a second holding tool (20E, 40E) capable of holding the door, and a second horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) that moves the second holding tool, wherein the first painting robot includes a base (10b) fixed in the first painting area, and in a direction in which the vehicle body (500) is conveyed by the conveyer, the base (10b) of the first painting robot is disposed between the base of the operation robot (30: base of 20L1, 20R1, 40a) and the second base (30: base of 20L2, 20R2, 40b) of the second operation robot. (See Yoshino, Fig. 2. )
Regarding claim 7, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Clifford teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Clifford, Abstract, paragraph 3. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshino teaches the first painting robot includes a first base (10b) fixed in the painting area, and in the vertical direction, the first base (30: base of 20L1, 20R1 20L2, 20R2; 40b) of the first operation robot is disposed at a position lower than the first base of the first painting robot (10b). (See Yoshino, Fig. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 9, Yoshino teaches the painting robot includes an ejector (10e) capable of ejecting paint, and a vertical articulated arm (10) that changes a position and a posture of the ejector, and in the vertical direction, (See Yoshino, Fig. 4. )
Yoshino does not explicitly teach the ejector is movable to a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different arms and different positions of the tool including the ejector is movable to a position lower than the height of the lower end of the door through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper location for the third arm relative to the substrate, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal mapping of the robot arm to avoid instability due to singularities. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Xiao, Abstract, Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-12, 24, 26-27, and 33-35 and 44.)
Regarding claim 10, Yoshino teaches in the vertical direction, the ejector operates at a position higher than at least a portion of the horizontal articulated arm. (See Yoshino, Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 11, Yoshino teaches the vehicle body includes a tailgate (530) that is opened and closed by pivoting around a horizontal axis, and the painting system further comprises an opener robot (40, 40) including a base (40b, 40b) fixed in the painting area, and configured to open the tailgate (530) by moving up a portion of the tailgate (530) in an immovable state where the vehicle body (500) is being conveyed by the conveyer (210). (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 12, Yoshino teaches the vertical direction, the first base of the first operation robot is disposed at a position lower than the first base of the first opener robot. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-2. )
Regarding claim 13, Yoshino teaches the painting robot (10) includes a first base (10b) fixed in the painting area, and the first base of the first opener robot (30, 40a, 40b) and the first base of the painting robot (10) are arranged at different positions in a direction in which the vehicle body is conveyed by the conveyer (210). (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 14, Yoshino teaches the vehicle body further includes a front hood (520) that is opened and closed by pivoting around a horizontal axis, the tailgate (530) is disposed at an upstream side of the front hood (520) in the vehicle body that is being conveyed by the conveyer, the painting system further comprises a second opener robot (40 on right ) including a second base (40b)fixed in the painting area, and configured to open the front hood (520) by moving up a portion of the front hood (520) in a state where the vehicle body is being conveyed by the conveyer, and in a direction in which the vehicle body is conveyed by the conveyer, the first base (40a) of the first opener robot (40) is disposed at an upstream side of the second base (40b) of the second opener robot (40). (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 14, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
Regarding claim 15, Yoshino teaches the painting robot (10) includes a first base (10b) fixed in the painting area, and in the direction in which the vehicle body (500) is conveyed by the conveyer (210), the first base (10b) of the first painting robot (10) is disposed between the first base (40a) of the first opener robot and the second base (40b) of the second opener robot. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 15, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a first painting robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshino teaches a second painting robot (10R2, 10L2) including a second base (10b) fixed in the painting area, and configured to paint an inside of the vehicle body, wherein in the direction in which the vehicle body (500) is conveyed by the conveyer (210) , the second base (10b) of the second painting robot (10R2, 10L2) is disposed between the first base (40a) of the first opener robot and the second base (40b) of the second opener robot , and is disposed at a position different from a position of the first base (40a) of the first painting robot. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 16, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second painting robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshino teaches further comprising:
a second operation robot (40 on right in Fig. 2, 20L, 20R2) including a second base (40, 30, 30) fixed in the painting area, a second holding tool (20e, 40e) capable of holding the door (520, 530), and a second horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) that moves the second holding tool; and
a second painting robot (10L2, 10R2) including a second base (10b, 10b) fixed in the painting area, and configured to paint an inside (inner plate) of the vehicle body,
wherein the first painting robot (10L1, 10R1, 10L2, 10R2) includes a first base (10b) fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area,
the second horizontal articulated arm (20, 40) includes a plurality of arms (21, 22, 23; 41, 42, 44) that corresponds to the first arm, the second arm, and the third arm,
the painting area is defined by a pair of side walls (walls on left and right in Fig. 2) that sandwiches the conveyer (210), and the first operation robot (20L1, 20R1, and 40 on left in Fig. 2) and the second operation robot (20L2 and 40 on right in Fig. 2) are arranged between a first side wall (wall at top of Fig. 2) of the pair of side walls and the conveyer, and the first base of the first painting robot (10b of 10L1) and the second base (10b of 10L2) of the second painting robot are fixed to the first side wall (wall at top of Fig. 2). (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 18, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second operation robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Ooshima is directed to painting robots in a paint booth.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second painting robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Ooshima is directed to painting robots in a paint booth.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshino teaches the vehicle body (500) includes a tailgate (530) that is opened and closed by pivoting around a horizontal axis, and a front hood (520) that is opened and closed by pivoting around a horizontal axis, the first tailgate (530) is disposed at an upstream side of the front hood (520) in the vehicle body that is being conveyed by the conveyer, the painting system further comprises: a first opener robot (40 on left in Fig. 2, 7A-7D) including a first base (40a) fixed in the painting area, and configured to open the tailgate (530) by moving up a portion of the tailgate in a state where the vehicle body (500) is being conveyed by the conveyer; and a second opener robot (40 on right in Fig. 2) including a second base (40b) fixed in the painting area, and configured to open the front hood (520) to move up a portion of the front hood (520) in a state where the vehicle body (500) is being conveyed by the conveyer (210), the first base (40a) of the first opener robot (40 on left in Fig. 2) is fixed to the first side wall or a second side wall (wall at bottom of Fig. 2) of the pair of side walls, and the second base (40b) of the second opener robot is fixed to the first side wall (wall at top of Fig. 2) or the second side wall. (See Yoshino, Abstract, paragraphs 54, 71, 85-87, 152, 160-161, 170, 172, and Figs. 1-12. )
Regarding claim 19, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a first opener robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Ooshima is directed to painting robots in a paint booth.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshino does not explicitly teach a second opener robot including a second base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area.
Ooshima is directed to painting robots in a paint booth.
Ooshima teaches open/closer robots which are mounted on the floor are art recognized equivalents of robots on side rails. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraph 31. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first operation robot including a first base fixed to be in an immovable state in the painting area as an art recognized equivalent. (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (See Ooshima, Abstract, paragraphs 1-2, 28, and 31 and Figs 1-11. )
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 and 18-21 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. US Pat. Pub. No. 20130034660 A1 to Koyanagi et al (hereinafter Koyanagi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20100030381 A1 to Scott J. Clifford and Paul D. Copioli (hereinafter Copioli) are being used to reject the limitations added to claims 1 and 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. Num. 5,286,160 to Akeel et al and US Pat. Num. 5,192,593 to Matsuo et al teach a horizontal portion of robot arm lower than the bottom of the car door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights