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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 3, 2025.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious material additional burden for the examination of all 19 originally filed claims. This is not found persuasive because all these inventions listed in this action are independent and distinct and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required due to the independent and distinct nature of the two groups.
Each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort. Further, different considerations are used in considering the independent and distinct inventions. There is also a burden because it is necessary to search for one of the independent and distinct inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to all of the elements of the other independent and distinct invention.
The independent and distinct inventions include elements which require search outside of the same classification. There is also a burden because it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to all of the elements of the other invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “G groups of mobile robots”, “R of the mobile robots”, “R portions of the first surface”, “assign R portions of the first surface”, and “R sets of instructions” in claim 11; “controller is configured to communicate with the R mobile robots” in claim 12; “second color”, “S of the mobile robots”, “S portions”, “S sets of instructions”, in claim 13; “second controller” in claims 17-19, “images and video” in claim 18, and “wherein the second controller is configured to control a position of the arm of the end effector to manipulate a swing panel of the vehicle” in claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been received in this application with 3 US Patent Documents, 2 Foreign Patent Documents, and 1 Non Patent Literature Document (German Office Action from Counterpart DE1020231284916 dated July 28, 2024). 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, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(a) section.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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: Terms in the claims such as “Second controller” which do not appear in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a vehicle” should be “the vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the first surface corresponds to a surface of a vehicle and further comprising an end effector including an arm, wherein the second controller is configured to control a position of the arm of the end effector to manipulate a swing panel of the vehicle”
A suggested revision based on Figs. 5A-B and paragraphs 28, 39 is as follows:
“the first surface corresponds to a surface of [[a]] the vehicle and said mobile robot further comprising an end effector including an arm, wherein the second controller is configured to control a position of the arm of the end effector to manipulate a swing panel of the vehicle.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20090304940 A1 to Heldt et al (hereinafter Heldt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210187526 A1 to Kundem et al (hereinafter Kundem) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220168769 A1 to Rodrigues (hereinafter Rodrigues).
Regarding claim 11, Heldt teaches painting system for a vehicle, comprising: G (2) groups of mobile robots each including a paint applicator (See Heldt, paragraph 19), where G is an integer greater than zero, wherein each of the G groups includes two or more mobile robots configured to paint a respective one of G paint colors (primer, exterior base coat, based coat, clear coat, and tinted basecoat); and a first controller. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 18-19, 21, 23, 25, 33, 36, 47-49, and 51-53, Figs. 1-4)
Heldt does not explicitly teach a first controller configured to: determine a first color of a first surface to be painted.
Kundem is directed to a coating machine with a sensor data indicative of a color of a color matching surface. ( Kundem, Abstract, paragraphs 32-34, 36, 49, 59, 62, 78, 83-84, 100, 103, and 110; Figs. 1-20 .)
Kundem teaches a first controller configured to: determine a first color of a first surface to be painted. ( Kundem, Abstract, paragraphs 32-34, 36, 49, 59, 62, 78, 83-84, 100, 103, and 110; Figs. 1-20 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first controller configured to: determine a first color of a first surface to be painted, because Kundem teaches following determination of a color of a surface control, action signals can be generated to replicate the determined color on the desired surface. ( Kundem, Abstract, paragraphs 32-34, 36, 49, 59, 62, 78, 83-84, 100, 103, and 110; Figs. 1-20 .)
Heldt teaches the various robots may be controlled by a central motion controller which provides instructions to the robots during a coating operation. (See Heldt, paragraph 23.)
Heldt teaches the mobile robots may be provided in three groups based on those applying a first primer coat (102a, 102d, 102i) to the interior and exterior of the body (200) and those robots (102b, 102g, 102J) applying primer coat to underhood /deck areas and those robots applying an exterior base coat layer. (See Heldt, paragraph 25.)
Examiner is considering the controller structure in Heldt which provides the groupings of robots described above to equivalent to a first controller configured to: select R of the mobile robots in a first one of the G groups ; assign R portions of the first surface to the R mobile robots of the first one of the G groups, respectively and send R sets of instructions to the R mobile robots of the first one of the G groups, respectively, to paint the R portions of the first surface. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 23, 25, 47-49, and 51-53, Figs. 1-4)
Heldt does not explicitly teach a first controller configured to: select R of the mobile robots in a first one of the G groups corresponding to the first color, where R is an integer greater than zero and less than or equal to G.
Rodrigues is directed to a coating machine wherein each nozzle head unit is dedicated one color type. ( Rodrigues, Abstract, paragraph 93.)
Rodrigues teaches the main body control unit (100) control the actuations of the nozzles to move to a specific position in the work station. ( Rodrigues, Abstract, paragraph 90.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a first controller configured to: select R of the mobile robots in a first one of the G groups corresponding to the first color, where R is an integer greater than zero and less than or equal to G, because Rodrigues teaches this would increase supply efficiency by removing the need to clean out the paint supply tank when refilling the paint supply tank. ( See Rodrigues, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 12, 17-18, 40, 46, 60, 73, 75-76, 79-80, 87-90, 95, 97, 106, 169, and 171; and Figs. 1-8.)
Regarding claim 12, Heldt teaches the first controller (controller) is configured to communicate with the R mobile robots of the first one of the G groups during painting of the first surface and to at least one of: replace at least one (102) of the R mobile robots with another mobile robot (second one of the robots) from the first one of the G groups when the at least one of the R mobile robots (disabled robot) has a malfunction; and adjust at least one of the R portions of the first surface and send revised instructions based on the adjustment. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 19-20, 47-53, and Figs. 1-4.)
Further regarding claim 13, Heldt does not explicitly teach the first controller is further configured to: determine a second color (base coat) of a second surface to be painted after the first surface, where the second color is different than the first color (primer)
Kundem teaches the first controller is further configured to: determine a second color (base coat) of a second surface to be painted after the first surface, where the second color is different than the first color (primer). ( Kundem, Abstract, paragraphs 32-34, 36, 49, 59, 62, 78, 83-84, 100, 103, and 110; Figs. 1-20 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first controller is further configured to: determine a second color (base coat) of a second surface to be painted after the first surface, where the second color is different than the first color (primer), because Kundem teaches following determination of a color of a surface control, action signals can be generated to replicate the determined color on the desired surface. ( Kundem, Abstract, paragraphs 32-34, 36, 49, 59, 62, 78, 83-84, 100, 103, and 110; Figs. 1-20 .)
Regarding claim 13, Heldt does not explicitly teach the first controller is further configured to: select S of the mobile robots of a second one of the G groups (102 g, j, e, f) corresponding to the second color (base coat), where S is an integer greater than zero and less than or equal to G; assign S portions of the second surface to be painted to the S mobile robots of the second one of the G groups(102 g, j, e, f) ; and send S sets of instructions to the S mobile robots of the second one of the G groups(102 g, j, e, f) , respectively, to paint S corresponding portions of the second surface. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 19-20, 47-53, and Figs. 1-4.)
Heldt teaches a second paint layer is applied with a second group of robots. (See Heldt, paragraphs, 18-19, 36)
Heldt teaches a central motion controller that provides instructions to the robots during a coating operation regarding movement wherein the instructions are based on the specifics of the vehicle body. (See Heldt, paragraph 23)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first controller is further configured to: select S of the mobile robots of a second one of the G groups corresponding to the second color , where S is an integer greater than zero and less than or equal to G; assign S portions of the second surface to be painted to the S mobile robots of the second one of the G groups ; and send S sets of instructions to the S mobile robots of the second one of the G groups, respectively, to paint S corresponding portions of the second surface, because Heldt teaches this would allow the vehicle to receive the desired coating layers at the appropriate time in the overall process. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 18-20, 36, 47-53, and Figs. 1-4.)
The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20090304940 A1 to Heldt et al (hereinafter Heldt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220168769 A1 to Rodrigues (hereinafter Rodrigues) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210187526 A1 to Kundem et al (hereinafter Kundem) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210308710 A1 to Asadi et al (hereinafter Asadi) .
Regarding claim 14, Heldt does not explicitly teach each of the mobile robots includes: a frame; wheels connected to the frame; a motor configured to move the wheels to position the mobile robot; a paint container mounted on the mobile robot and configured to store paint; and a robot arm including a first end mounted on the mobile robot and a paint applicator arranged at a second end of the robot arm, wherein the paint applicator is in fluid communication with the paint container and includes one or more nozzles to spray the paint onto the first surface.
Asadi teaches the mobile robot includes: a frame (100) ; wheels (111) connected to the frame; a motor configured to move the wheels to position the mobile robot; a paint container (500) mounted on the mobile robot and configured to store paint; and a robot arm (300) including a first end mounted on the mobile robot and a paint applicator (400) arranged at a second end of the robot arm, wherein the paint applicator is in fluid communication with the paint container and includes one or more nozzles to spray the paint onto the first surface. ( See Asadi, Abstract, paragraphs 12-14, 18, 21, 47, 53, 65-66, and 74 ; Figs. 1-6 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include teach each of the mobile robots includes: a frame; wheels connected to the frame; a motor configured to move the wheels to position the mobile robot; a paint container mounted on the mobile robot and configured to store paint; and a robot arm including a first end mounted on the mobile robot and a paint applicator arranged at a second end of the robot arm, wherein the paint applicator is in fluid communication with the paint container and includes one or more nozzles to spray the paint onto the first surface, because Asadi teaches this would enable the robot to be moved to an optimal position for spraying. ( Asadi, Abstract, paragraphs 12-14, 18, 21, 47, 53, 65-66, and 74 ; Figs. 1-6.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20090304940 A1 to Heldt et al (hereinafter Heldt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220168769 A1 to Rodrigues (hereinafter Rodrigues) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210187526 A1 to Kundem et al (hereinafter Kundem) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20240139768 A1 to Fritz et al (hereinafter Fritz).
Regarding claim 15, Heldt teaches the first surface corresponds to a surface of a vehicle. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 19-20, 47-53, and Figs. 1-4.)
Heldt does not explicitly teach one of an overspray-free paint applicator and a high transfer efficiency paint applicator.
Fritz is directed to the coating of vehicle components.
Fritz teaches one of an overspray-free paint applicator and a high transfer efficiency paint applicator. (See Fritz, Abstract, paragraphs 3-4 and 51.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include teach one of an, because Fritz teaches this would reduce cost by eliminating the need for disposal of the overspray. (See Fritz, Abstract, paragraphs 3-4 and 51.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20090304940 A1 to Heldt et al (hereinafter Heldt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220168769 A1 to Rodrigues (hereinafter Rodrigues) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210187526 A1 to Kundem et al (hereinafter Kundem) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100330292 A1 to Endregaard et al (hereinafter Endregaard).
Regarding claim 16, Heldt does not explicitly teach the paint applicator includes a plurality of nozzles and a plurality of actuators configured to adjust positions of the plurality of nozzles, respectively.
Endregaard is directed to an application robot with multiple application devices.
Endregaard teaches the paint applicator includes a plurality of nozzles (11- 14) and a plurality of actuators (electrical or pneumatic positioning drives) configured to adjust positions of the plurality of nozzles, respectively (14, 18). (See Endregaard, Abstract, paragraphs 18, 20, 87 and Figs. 7, 10.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the paint applicator includes a plurality of nozzles and a plurality of actuators configured to adjust positions of the plurality of nozzles, respectively, because Endregaard teaches this would enable the robot to move the application devices relative to each other. (See Endregaard, Abstract, paragraphs 18, 20, 87 and Figs. 1-10.)
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20090304940 A1 to Heldt et al (hereinafter Heldt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220168769 A1 to Rodrigues (hereinafter Rodrigues) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210187526 A1 to Kundem et al (hereinafter Kundem) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210308710 A1 to Asadi et al (hereinafter Asadi) as applied to claim 14 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200298268 A1 to Henderson et al (hereinafter Henderson).
Regarding claim 17, Heldt does not explicitly teach each of the mobile robots includes a second controller configured to control movement of at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm, and the paint applicator.
Henderson is directed to a robot for applying a surface coating.
Henderson teaches the mobile robot includes a second controller (604, 606, 610) configured to control movement of at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm (610), and the paint applicator (606). (See Henderson, Abstract, paragraphs 38, 42, 44, 48-49, 53-54, and 57 and Figs. 1-8.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include each of the mobile robots includes a second controller configured to control movement of at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm, and the paint applicator, because Henderson teaches this would enable effective, relatively low cost application of surface coatings. (See Henderson, Abstract, paragraphs 17, 26, 38, 42, 44, 48-49, 53-54, 57, and 85 and Figs. 1-8.)
Regarding claim 18, Heldt does not explicitly teach a vision guidance system configured to communicate with the second controller, to take at least one of images and video of the first surface, and to determine a position of at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm, and the paint applicator based on the at least one of images and video of the first surface, wherein the second controller is configured to position the at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm, and the paint applicator in response to the vision guidance system.
Henderson teaches a vision guidance system (position calculator 604 and camera as an input device) configured to communicate with the second controller, to take at least one of images and video of the first surface (contour or curvature of the surface 124 ; camera providing still or video input) , and to determine a position of at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm (114), and the paint applicator (224) based on the at least one of images and video of the first surface(curvature of the surface 124), wherein the second controller (610) is configured to position the at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm (114), and the paint applicator (224) in response to the vision guidance system (604). (See Henderson, Abstract, paragraphs 20, 25-26, 38-39, 42, 44, 48-49, 51, 53-54, 57, and 60 and Figs. 1-8.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a vision guidance system configured to communicate with the second controller, to take at least one of images and video of the first surface, and to determine a position of at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm, and the paint applicator based on the at least one of images and video of the first surface, wherein the second controller is configured to position the at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm, and the paint applicator in response to the vision guidance system, because Henderson teaches this would enable effective, relatively low cost application of surface coatings. (See Henderson, Abstract, paragraphs 17, 26, 38, 42, 44, 48-49, 53-54, 57, 60, and 85 and Figs. 1-8.)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20090304940 A1 to Heldt et al (hereinafter Heldt) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20220168769 A1 to Rodrigues (hereinafter Rodrigues) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210187526 A1 to Kundem et al (hereinafter Kundem) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210308710 A1 to Asadi et al (hereinafter Asadi) further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200298268 A1 to Henderson et al (hereinafter Henderson) as applied to claim 18 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,240,745 to Yamamoto et al (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 19, Heldt teaches the first surface corresponds to a surface of a vehicle and further comprising an end effector including an arm, and a position of the arm of the end effector is configured to manipulate a swing panel of the vehicle. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 28-30, and 51-53, Figs. 1-4)
Heldt does not explicitly teach the second controller is configured to control a position of the arm of the end effector to manipulate a swing panel of the vehicle.
Yamamoto is directed to coating a vehicle as the vehicle travels along a transfer path. ( Yamamoto, Abstract, col. 4, lines 22-29, col. 9, lines 55-col. 10, lines 9; col. 10, lines 644 to col. 11, line 22.)
Yamamoto teaches a controller (420) is configured to control a position of the arm of the end effector (32a-b) to manipulate a swing panel (hood) of the vehicle. ( Yamamoto, Abstract, col. 4, lines 22-29, col. 9, lines 55-col. 10, lines 9; col. 10, lines 644 to col. 11, line 22.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the second controller is configured to control a position of the arm of the end effector to manipulate a swing panel of the vehicle with a reasonableexpectation of success; because Yamamoto teaches a controller a known device for controlling the device to open and close a swing panel of a vehicle in facility configured to provide a uniform coated surface on the vehicle. ( Yamamoto, Abstract, col. 4, lines 22-29, col. 9, lines 55-col. 10, lines 9; col. 10, lines 644 to col. 11, line 22.)
The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)
Conclusion
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 at (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 ExaminerArt Unit 1717