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 .
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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments, filed February 24th, 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues McKenzie does not teach the limitation(s) involving “an inner portion […] being rotatable about a rotation axis relative to the outer portion”, nor does it mention the “rotation axis is perpendicular to a surface of the object”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as McKenzie clearly teaches an articulated arm of a robot including “a roll joint, a pitch joint, and a yaw joint” to “allow the shoulder portion to twist or rotate about a central axis with respect to the base portion” in [0008] and [0054–0056] as referenced in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) below. Examiner notes the claim as written, utilizing the terminology of an inner and outer “portion”, is extremely broad in scope, thus allowing McKenzie to entirely support these limitations, since each and every component in the system is covered by an element of the prior art combination, including the functionality of the assembling apparatus. Furthermore, McKenzie more distinctly supports the claimed rotational relationship in [0063] by describing the joint(s) being “controlled to maintain a vector extending perpendicularly between the end effector fingers in parallel or near-parallel alignment with the pipe stand.” Considering the location of a base portion of the robot being an inner portion, with the articulated arm joint being an outer portion (purely based on relative location of each component), and the pipe stand being a surface of an object, McKenzie clearly teaches each and every limitation describing the passive revolute joint of the robot; and when combined with the assembly robot disclosed by Saez, every limitation in the claims is supported. For at least these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Saez et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0262078 A1), herein “Saez”, in view of McKenzie et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0040674 A1), herein “McKenzie”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Saez discloses an assembling apparatus and method (See 0001, “[…] a fixtureless component assembly system and to a method of assembling a component.”) comprising:
an image sensor arranged above an assembling station (See Fig. 1 Reference 32. See also 0018-0019, “[…] the inspection camera is mounted at a fixed position […] the inspection camera is mounted onto an inspection robot arm, wherein the inspection robot arm is adapted to move the inspection camera to an inspection position to visually locate the interface surfaces on the first and second subcomponents.” Examiner notes Fig. 1 Reference 32 is the image sensor, and can be fixed or moved above the assembling station depending on the objects being operated);
a first robot arranged near to the assembling station and configured to hold a first portion of an object to be assembled onto a target object arranged on the assembling station (See 0014, “[…] assembly system comprises a first robot arm having a first end-of-arm tool mounted thereon and adapted to grasp a first subcomponent […]”);
wherein the first robot comprises:
an end effector configured to hold the object and comprising:
a first element configured to hold the first portion of the object (See 0014 as referenced above. See also 0004, “[…] gripping a first subcomponent with a first end-of-arm tool, wherein the first end-of-arm tool is attached to a first robot arm […]”);
a second element adapted to be connected to a free end of an arm of the first robot (See 0004 and 0014 as referenced above. Examiner notes the end-of-arm tool represents the first element of the end effector, while the robot arm itself is the second element); and
a second robot arranged near to the assembling station and configured to hold a second portion of the object spaced apart from the first portion (See 0014, “[…] a second robot arm having a second end of arm tool mounted thereon and adapted to grasp a second subcomponent […]”); and
a controller configured to:
cause the image sensor to capture images of the object and the target object (See 0014, “[…] camera is in communication with the system controller and adapted to visually locate interface surfaces on the first and second subcomponents, wherein the system controller estimates an off-set between a pre-assembly position and a required assembly position.”);
based on the captured images, cause the first robot to move the first portion by a first distance in a first direction (See 0034, “[…] inspection camera visually locates interface surfaces 34, datums and identifying features on the first, second and third subcomponents […] communicates with the system controller […] uses information from the inspection camera to determine the position of the first, second and third subcomponents […] and to control the first, second and third robot arms 12, 16, 20 to move the first, second and third subcomponents 24, 26, 28 appropriately throughout the assembly process.”); and
based on the captured images, cause the second robot to move the second portion by a second distance different from the first distance in the first direction or move the second portion in a direction opposite to the first direction, such that the object is aligned with the target object (See 0034 as referenced above. See also 0014, “[…] a system controller adapted to control the first and second robot arms and first and second end-of-arm tools to position the first and second subcomponents relative to one another […] estimates an off-set between a pre-assembly position and a required assembly position […] as the first and second end-of-arm tools move the first and second subcomponents to the required assembly position.”).
But does not explicitly disclose a passive revolute joint comprising:
an outer portion connected to one of the first and second elements; and
an inner portion connected to the other one of the first and second elements and being rotatable about a rotation axis relative to the outer portion, wherein the rotation axis is perpendicular to a surface of the object.
McKenzie, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a passive revolute joint (See 0008, “A joint between the end effector and the articulated arm may include a roll joint, a pitch joint, and a yaw joint.” See also 0054-0056, “[…] shoulder portion may couple to the base portion via a joint 125, which may be a swivel joint in some embodiments. The swivel joint 125 may allow the shoulder portion 126 to twist or rotate about a central axis with respect to the base portion […] A joint or elbow 127, which may be a pitch joint, may be arranged between the articulated arm 128 and the shoulder portion 126. The pitch joint 127 may allow the articulated arm 128 to pivot with respect to the shoulder portion 126 about an axis extending lateral to the shoulder portion and articulated arm […] A joint 129 may be arranged between the wrist portion 130 and the articulated arm 128 and may provide for pivotable or rotational movement of the wrist with respect to the articulated arm about one or more axes. The joint 129 may be or include a pitch joint allowing for pivotable movement about a first lateral axis extending lateral to the articulated arm 128 and wrist 130, a yaw joint allowing for pivotable movement about a second lateral axis perpendicular to the first lateral axis, and/or a roll joint allowing for pivotable or rotational movement about an axis extending longitudinally through the wrist portion.” Examiner notes a passive revolute joint is simply a connection allowing rotational motion around a single axis without its movement being actively controlled by a motor or actuator, thus being the same as the swivel joint, pivot joint, and pitch joint taught by McKenzie) comprising:
an outer portion connected to one of the first and second elements (See 0008 and 0054-0056 as referenced above); and
an inner portion connected to the other one of the first and second elements and being rotatable about a rotation axis relative to the outer portion, wherein the rotation axis is perpendicular to a surface of the object (See 0008 and 0054-0056 as referenced above. See also 0063, “[…] a position and angle of the end effector 132 at joint 131 may be controlled to maintain a vector extending perpendicularly between the end effector fingers in parallel or near-parallel alignment with the pipe stand.”).
In view of McKenzie’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with a first robot comprising an end effector for grasping and moving a portion of an object to be assembled as disclosed by Saez, the joint connecting the different elements of the end effector (i.e., arm portion, gripper portion, base portion) to be a passive revolute joint, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the robot(s) already include such end effectors with elements connected by joints, and using a passive revolute joint improves the robot’s adaptability to external forces or object geometries during the assembly process, and simplifies the mechanical structure of the overall system, thus also improving cost-effectiveness.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Saez further discloses the assembling apparatus and method of Claims 1 and 8, wherein the second robot comprises an end effector configured to hold the object (See 0014 as referenced above) and comprising:
a first element configured to hold the second portion of the object (See 0014 as referenced above. Examiner notes the “end-of-arm” tool on the first robot arm to grasp a first subcomponent is the first element configured to hold the first potion of an object);
a second element adapted to be connected to a free end of an arm of the first or second robot (See 0004, “[…] the second end-of-arm tool is attached to a second robot arm.” Examiner notes a separate “end-of-arm” tool connected to a second robot arm is the second element, separate from the first element); and
a passive revolute joint (See 0013, “[…] forming a joint between the first subcomponent and the second subcomponent with a joining tool attached to a joining robot arm and forming a joint between the second subcomponent and the third subcomponent with a joining tool attached to a joining robot arm to thereby assemble the finished component.” Examiner notes the joint formed between two subcomponents creates a hinge, allowing one degree of freedom around the hinge, thus being a revolute joint) comprising:
an outer portion connected to one of the first and second elements (See 0013 as referenced above. Examiner notes each subcomponent comprises at least two surfaces, so a revolute joint around the formed hinge inherently includes an inner and outer portion that are connected to the first and second elements); and
an inner portion connected to the other one of the first and second elements and being rotatable about a rotation axis relative to the outer portion (See 0013 as referenced above. Examiner notes each subcomponent comprises at least two surfaces, so a revolute joint around the formed hinge inherently includes an inner and outer portion that are connected to the first and second elements, with the inner portion being rotatable about the hinge).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Saez further discloses the assembling apparatus and method of Claims 2 and 9, wherein the rotation axis of the passive revolute joint of the second robot is perpendicular to the surface of the object (See 0013 as referenced above. See also 0044, “[…] the system controller articulates the first, second and third robot arms 12, 16, 20 to move 60 the first and second end-of-arm tools 14, 18, 22 to bring the interface surfaces 34 of the first, second and third subcomponents 24, 26, 28 into engagement […] system controller 30 moves 62 the first, second and third subcomponents 24, 26, 28 toward the required assembly position.” Examiner notes the assembling apparatus and method engaging multiple surfaces, with the ability to form a revolute joint between two subcomponents, means that it is capable of engaging the two subcomponents to rotate perpendicular to either objects’ surface since there is no limit on its degrees of rotation).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Saez further discloses the assembling apparatus and method of Claims 1 and 8, wherein the end effector is configured to hold the object and comprising a torque sensor, the torque sensor being configured to sense a torque acted on the end effector (See 0014, “Sensors are mounted on the first and second end-of-arm tools and adapted to measure torque forces and lateral forces placed on the first and second subcomponents by the first and second end-of-arm tools as the first and second end-of-arm tools move the first and second subcomponents […]”); and
wherein the controller is further configured to cause the first robot or the second robot to move the object such that a measurement value of the torque sensor is within a predetermined range (See 0022, “[…] moves the first, second and third end-of-arm tools to the required assembly position based on the torque forces and lateral forces measured by the sensors on the first, second and third end-of-arm tools compared against reference force targets.”).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Saez further discloses the assembling apparatus and method of Claims 1 and 8, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the first and second robots to move the object in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (See 0013 and 0044 as referenced above. Examiner notes the revolute joint being formed at a 90-degree angle between the first and second subcomponents would constitute the second direction of the object being perpendicular to the first direction).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Saez further discloses the assembling apparatus and method of Claims 5 and 12, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the first and second robots to move the same distance in the second direction (See 0039, “[…] the system controller 30 can be used to vary the torque forces and lateral forces being applied to the first, second and third subcomponents […] forces applied to the first, second and third subcomponents 24, 26, 28 can be carefully controlled […] control of the position of the first, second and third subcomponents 24, 26, 28 relative to one another and control of the forces applied to the first, second and third subcomponents 24, 26, 28 while the first, second and third subcomponents 24, 26, 28 are being welded together allows the final shape and material characteristics of the finished component to be controlled.” Examiner notes varying applied force and subcomponent positioning by each robot arm relative to each other includes moving them the same distance in any lateral direction).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Saez further discloses the assembling apparatus and method of Claims 5 and 12, wherein the second robot comprises an end effector configured to hold the object and comprising a force sensor configured to sense a force acted on the end effector (See 0014 as referenced above); and
wherein the controller is further configured to cause the second robot to move the object in the second direction such that a measurement value of the force sensor is within a predetermined range (See 0022 as referenced above. Examiner notes the reference force targets are given in a predetermined range).
Regarding Claims 15-20, Saez further discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the assembling method according to claims 8-13, respectively (See 0032, “The system controller 30 is a non-generalized, electronic control device having a preprogrammed digital computer or processor, memory or non-transitory computer readable medium used to store data such as control logic, software applications, instructions, computer code, data […]”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658