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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsou U.S. PGPub 2019/0193268 (hereinafter “Tsou”) in view of Zhu CN 106239902 A (hereainafter “Zhu” , wherein citations refer to the provided English Translation).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 13, Tsou discloses a method for assembling a component (e.g. component), applicable to assembling the component) to a fitting body (e.g. second component), the method comprising: acquiring scanned data by scanning a space (e.g. environment) where the prism and the fitting body are disposed in response to the prism being placed at a first predetermined station and the fitting body being placed at a second predetermined station (e.g. ¶40, 48, 51-52, 54-55 and 57; Fig. 4-6); generating a physical 3D model (i.e. assembled product) by three-dimensional reconstruction on the component, the fitting body, and the space based on the scanned data (e.g. ¶40, 48, 51-52, 54-55 and 57; Fig. 4-6); acquiring comparison data by comparing the physical 3D model with a theoretical 3D model, wherein the theoretical 3D model is a theoretical model for fitting the component to the fitting body (e.g. ¶45 and 48); and controlling, based on the comparison data, a manipulator (e.g. robot) to fit the prism at the component predetermined station to the fitting body at the second predetermined station (e.g. ¶40, 48, 51-52, 54-55 and 57; Fig. 4-6). Regarding claim 13, Tsou discloses an apparatus for assembling a component, configured to assemble the component to a fitting body, the apparatus comprising: a manipulator, configured to grasp the component (e.g. ¶40, 48, 51-52, 54-55 and 57; Fig. 4-6); a motorized unit (e.g. servomotor), connected to the manipulator, and configured to drive the manipulator to fit the component at a first predetermined station to the fitting body at a second predetermined station (e.g. ¶40, 48, 51-52, 54-55 and 57; Fig. 4-6); a scanner, configured to scan a space where the component and the fitting body are disposed (e.g. ¶40, 48, 51-52, 54-55 and 57; Fig. 4-6); at least one processor, connected to both the motorized unit and the scanner, wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the motorized to drive the manipulator to fit the prism to the fitting body, and control the scanner to scan the space where the prism and the fitting body are disposed (e.g. ¶40, 48, 51-52, 54-55 and 57; Fig. 4-6); and a memory, communicably connected to the at least one processor (e.g. ¶30-31). Tsou discloses assembling a component to a fitting body using a robot (or manipulator), but does not explicitly disclose assembling a prism to a fitting body.
Zhu discloses assembling a prism to a fitting body using a robot (e.g. pg. 3, 3rd ¶ from the bottom, “optical module…”; pg. 3-4, last ¶, “As shown inf FIG. 1…”).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to assemble a prism with a fitting body using a robot with 3D scanning capabilities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since the 3D scanning prevents colliding/interfering with other objects (e.g. Tsou, ¶34) and provides a more accurate operation of the robot (e.g. Tsou, ¶40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tsou with Zhu to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 7 and 13.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 8, 12, 14, 18 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsou and Zhu as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Adachi et al. U.S. PGPub 2019/0295244 (hereinafter “Adachi”).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 14, Tsou discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein acquiring the scanned data by scanning the space where the component and the fitting body are disposed in response to the component being placed at the first predetermined station and the fitting body being placed at the second predetermined station comprises: scanning, using a scanner, the space where the component and the fitting body are disposed (e.g. ¶40, 48, 51-52, 54-55 and 57; Fig. 4-6); and forming the scanned data by acquiring a distance from the scanner to the space where the prism and the fitting body are disposed (e.g. ¶40, 48, 51-52, 54-55 and 57; Fig. 4-6). Tsou nor Zhu disclose scanning with a laser scanner.
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Tsou nor Zhu explicitly disclose verifying a fitting situation by scanning the fitting body fitted with the prism in response to the manipulator fitting the prism at the first predetermined station to the fitting body at the second predetermined station.
Adachi discloses using a 3D laser scanner with an assembly robot (e.g. ¶22 and 47). Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Adachi discloses verifying (i.e. via inspection) a fitting situation by scanning the fitting body fitted with the prism in response to the manipulator fitting the prism at the first predetermined station to the fitting body at the second predetermined station (e.g. ¶62-64).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a robot with 3D laser scanning capabilities to verify proper assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since the 3D laser scanning provides for more accurate and precise measuring, which would also aid a verification process that ensures the assembly is properly done (e.g. Tsou, ¶40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Tsou with Zhu to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2, 6, 8, 12, 14, 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9-11, 15-17, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, the prior art of record does not disclose generating the physical 3D model in accordance with an inverse imaging principle by three-dimensional reconstruction on the prism, the fitting body, and the space based on the distance from the laser scanner to the space where the prism and the fitting body are disposed. Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record does not disclose the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the motorized unit comprises a first driving member and a second driving member; the first driving member is connected to the manipulator, and configured to drive the manipulator to move along a first direction, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to a surface, distal from the first predetermined station, of the prism; and the second driving member is connected to the first driving member, and configured to drive the first driving member to move in a first plane, wherein the first plane is perpendicular to the first direction. The allowability, at least in part resides in these facts.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
CK
February 4, 2026
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116