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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/4/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7-19, and 21-30 remain pending in the present application. Claims 2-6 and 20 have been cancelled while claims 21-30 are new claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-10, 14-18, 21-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madden et al. (US Patent 6,516,239).
Regarding Claim 1; Madden teaches; A multi-track conveyor system for repairing a defect on an article of manufacture, comprising: (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B; disclose a multi-track conveyor system for vehicle bodies which include multiple inspection and repair sections (148, 150, and 154)
an input track; (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
an output track; (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
and a plurality of tracks coupling the input track and the output track, wherein (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
the article of manufacture includes an automobile chassis, (Madden; at least column 11, lines 1-67; disclose wherein the article of manufacture are vehicle bodies)
and the plurality of tracks comprises a first track including a first workstation, a second track including a second workstation, and a bypass track, the first workstation and the second workstation each configured to repair defects on the article of manufacture. (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B; disclose multiple tracks (142, 152) each with an associated workstation (150 and 154 respectively) wherein each station is configured to inspect/repair defects on vehicle delivered to the respective stations and further the system includes various bypass tracks (162, 172)).
Regarding Claim 7; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, wherein one of the tracks of the plurality of tracks coupling the input track and the output track includes a plurality of workstations. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 8; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, further comprising an additional track coupled to the input track and another output track. (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding Claim 9; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, wherein the bypass track is configured to selectively receive the article of manufacture from the input track when the defect on the article of manufacture cannot be repaired by the first workstation or the second workstation. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67; column 14, lines 1-33).
Regarding Claim 10; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of tracks includes a track without a workstation. (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding Claim 14; Madden teaches; A method for repairing a defect on an article of manufacture, comprising steps of providing a multi-track conveyor system including: (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B; disclose a multi-track conveyor system for vehicle bodies which include multiple inspection and repair sections (148, 150, and 154)
an input track; (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
an output track; (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
and a plurality of tracks coupling the input track and the output track, wherein (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
the article of manufacture includes an automobile chassis, (Madden; at least column 11, lines 1-67; disclose wherein the article of manufacture are vehicle bodies)
and the plurality of tracks comprises a first track including a first workstation, a second track including a second workstation, and a bypass track, the first workstation and the second workstation each configured to repair defects on the article of manufacture. (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B; disclose multiple tracks (142, 152) each with an associated workstation (150 and 154 respectively) wherein each station is configured to inspect/repair defects on vehicle delivered to the respective stations and further the system includes various bypass tracks (162, 172))
providing the article of manufacture on the input track; (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67; column 14, lines 1-33)
identifying the defect on the article of manufacture; (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67; column 14, lines 1-33)
directing the article of manufacture to one of the first track and the second track; and repairing the defect using one of the first workstation and the second workstation. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67; column 14, lines 1-33).
Regarding Claim 15; Madden teaches; The method of Claim 14, wherein the multi-track conveyor system further includes an object inspection system configured to identify the defect on the article of manufacture. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67; column 14, lines 1-33).
Regarding Claim 16; Madden teaches; The method of Claim 14, further comprising an additional track coupled to the input track and another output track. (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding Claim 17; Madden teaches; The method of Claim 14, wherein the bypass track is configured to selectively receive the article of manufacture from the input track when the defect on the article of manufacture cannot be repaired by the first workstation or the second workstation. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67; column 14, lines 1-33).
Regarding Claim 18; Madden teaches; The method of Claim 14, wherein the plurality of tracks includes a track without a workstation. (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding Claim 21; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, further comprising an object inspection system coupled to the input track. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 22; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, further comprising an object inspection system coupled to the output track. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 23; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of tracks further comprises a third track. (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding Claim 24; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 23, wherein the third track includes a third workstation. (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B).
Regarding Claim 25; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 24, wherein the first workstation, the second workstation, and third workstation are each configured to repair different defects on the article of manufacture. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67; column 14, lines 1-33).
Regarding Claim 26; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, wherein the defects include a first defect and a second defect, the first defect different than the second defect. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67; column 14, lines 1-33).
Regarding Claim 27; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, wherein the output track includes a manual inspection area. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67).
Regarding Claim 28; Madden teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, wherein the defect comprises a defect in a layer of paint. (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67).
Regarding Claim 30; Madden teaches; A multi-track conveyor system for repairing a defect on an article of manufacture, comprising: (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B; disclose a multi-track conveyor system for vehicle bodies which include multiple inspection and repair sections (148, 150, and 154)
an input track; (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
an output track; (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
an object inspection system coupled to the input track; (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
an object inspection system coupled to the output track; (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
and a plurality of tracks coupling the input track and the output track, wherein (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
the article of manufacture includes an automobile chassis, (Madden; at least column 11, lines 1-67; disclose wherein the article of manufacture are vehicle bodies)
and the plurality of tracks comprises a first track including a first workstation, a second track including a second workstation, and a bypass track, the first workstation and the second workstation each configured to repair defects on the article of manufacture, (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B; disclose multiple tracks (142, 152) each with an associated workstation (150 and 154 respectively)
one track of the plurality of tracks coupling the input track and the output track includes a plurality of workstations, (Madden; least Figs. 1A and 1B)
the plurality of tracks includes a track without a workstation, (Madden; at least Figs. 1A and 1B)
the output track includes a manual inspection area, (Madden; at least Fig. 1B; column 13, lines 25-67)
and the first workstation and the second workstation each include a plurality of robots configured to perform a plurality of paint defect correction processes. (Madden; at least column 15, lines 1-17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11, 19, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden et al. (US Patent 6,516,239) in view of Arthur et al. (US PGPUB 20220382262).
Regarding Claims 11 and 19; Madden appears to be silent on; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 10, wherein the track without the workstation is configured to selectively receive the article of manufacture from the input track when the defect on the article of manufacture is below a predetermined threshold for repair of the defect on the article of manufacture.
However, Arthur teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 10, wherein the track without the workstation is configured to selectively receive the article of manufacture from the input track when the defect on the article of manufacture is below a predetermined threshold for repair of the defect on the article of manufacture. (Arthur; at least paragraphs [0045] and [0057]; disclose a vehicle defect detection and repair system and method wherein detected defects are compared to a threshold, and based on the comparison, is can be selectively guided along an assembly track).
Madden and Arthur are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of vehicle defect detection and repair control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of guiding a vehicle based upon the severity of the defects as taught by Arthur with the known system of a defect detection and repair control system as taught by Madden in order to provide a way to correct detected defects such as paint defects on automobiles before they leave the manufacturing facility as taught by Arthur (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 29; the combination of Madden and Arthur teach; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, wherein the multi-track conveyor system is configured to route the article of manufacture to a selected track based on one of a location of the defect, a number of instances of the defect, a type of the defect, a predetermined time to repair the defect, and combinations thereof. (Arthur; at least paragraphs [0002] and [0025]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madden et al. (US Patent 6,516,239) in view of Harrison et al. (US Patent 7,168,549).
Regarding Claim 12; Madden appears to be silent on; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, further comprising a lift table configured to transport the article of manufacture to one of the first workstation and the second workstation.
However, Harrison teaches; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 1, further comprising a lift table configured to transport the article of manufacture to one of the first workstation and the second workstation. (Harrison; at least Figs. 1A-3B; column 2, lines 5-39; disclose a lift table to help transport an article of manufacture to a plurality of workstations at varying heights).
Madden and Harrison are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of vehicle manufacturing and control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of using a lift table as taught by Harrison with the known system of a vehicle manufacturing and control system as taught by Madden in order to provide a way to improve the ergonomics during repair processes as taught by Harrison (column 2, lines 30-34).
Regarding Claim 13; the combination of Madden and Harrison teach; The multi-track conveyor system of Claim 12, wherein the lift table is configured to transport the article of manufacture from the input track to the output track. (Harrison; at least Figs. 1A-3B; column 2, lines 5-39).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 9/4/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Madden et al. (US Patent 6,516,239).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farquhar et al. (US PGPUB 20240124079): disclose a system and method for identifying painting defects on vehicle bodies during a manufacturing process, and in response to detecting specific defects, diverting the vehicle to a particular area to correct the defect.
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 CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2117