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 April 29, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 11,12, 14-15, and 19 were amended. Non-elected claim 3 was cancelled. Claims 20-21 were added. Claims 11-21are in the application and pending examination. Claims 1 and 3-10 have been withdrawn. Replacement Paragraphs were submitted on page 7, line 12 and page 28, line 32 to page 29, line 9 to correct minor typographical errors. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) are being maintained. 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.
The following claim limitations: “send revised instructions based on the adjustment to direct the another mobile robot from a maintenance area to the self-propelled cart” in claim 12 and “the revised instructions direct the another mobile robot from the maintenance area relative to a travel path of the self-propelled cart and account for movement of the self-propelled cart relative to the travel path since the malfunction” in claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
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 “send revised instructions based on the adjustment to direct the another mobile robot from a maintenance area to the self-propelled cart” in claim 12 (now dependent 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
One 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 previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive.
The previous objection to the specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter is withdrawn based on Applicant’s arguments identifying “second controller” as reference numeral 434 controller in the specification.
Claim 12 amended to be dependent on claim 17 and amended to recite “send revised instructions based on the adjustment to direct the another mobile robot from a maintenance area to the self-propelled cart”.
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: “send revised instructions based on the adjustment to direct the another mobile robot from a maintenance area to the self-propelled cart” in claim 12 and “the revised instructions direct the another mobile robot from the maintenance area relative to a travel path of the self-propelled cart and account for movement of the self-propelled cart relative to the travel path since the malfunction” in claim 21.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claims 15 and 18 based on the following informalities: “a vehicle” should be “the vehicle” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 15 and Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18.
The previous objection to claim 19 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 19.
Claims 12 and 21 recites:” another mobile robot”. A suggested revision is “ second robot”.
Claim 20 recites : “the robots”. A suggested revision is : “the mobile robots”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 11-13 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
Claims 11 and 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) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210346905 A1 to Schulze et al (hereinafter Schulze) .
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 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 a first controller configured to: determine a first color of a first surface of the vehicle 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 in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention a first controller configured to: determine a first color of a first surface of the vehicle 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 in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention 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.)
Heldt does not explicitly teach the vehicle is arranged on a frame or a fixture of a self-propelled cart having wheels.
Schulze is directed to a surface treatment facility for surface-treating vehicle bodies in carriages. ( Schulze, Abstract.)
Schulze teach the vehicle is arranged on a frame or a fixture of a self-propelled cart (20) having wheels. ( Schulze, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 3, 11-13, 20, 71, 76, 78-79, 94, 97-98, 102 and Figs. 1-7, 9-12.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention the vehicle is arranged on a frame or a fixture of a self-propelled cart having wheels, because Schulze teaches this would enable varations in production sequence to be implemented in short notice. ( Schulze, Abstract, paragraphs 1, 3, 11-13, 20, 71, 76, 78-79, 94, 97-98, 102 and Figs. 1-7, 9-12.)
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 11 (painting system for a vehicle). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Heldt in view of Kundem and Rodrigues and Schulze is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
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 in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to have the first controller 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 in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention 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)
The previous rejection of claim 14 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
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) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210346905 A1 to Schulze et al (hereinafter Schulze) as applied to claim 13 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 in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed inventionteach 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.)
The previous rejection of claim 15 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
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) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210346905 A1 to Schulze et al (hereinafter Schulze) 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. 20240139768 A1 to Fritz et al (hereinafter Fritz).
Regarding claim 15, 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 in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention 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.)
The previous rejection of claim 16 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
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) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210346905 A1 to Schulze et al (hereinafter Schulze) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210308710 A1 to Asadi et al (hereinafter Asadi) as applied to claim 14 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 in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention 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.)
The previous rejection of claims 17-18 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
Claims 17-18 and 12 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. 20210346905 A1 to Schulze et al (hereinafter Schulze) 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 in response to the sets of instructions sent by the first controller.
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) in response to the sets of instructions sent by the first controller (610). (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 in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention 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 in response to the sets of instructions sent by the first controller, 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 in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention 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.)
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 to direct the another mobile robot from a maintenance area to the self-propelled cart. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 19-20, 47-53, and Figs. 1-4.)
The previous rejection of claim 19 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) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 11.
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. 20210346905 A1 to Schulze et al (hereinafter Schulze) 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 swing panel of the vehicle and the mobile robots further include 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 the swing panel by at least one of positioning the swing panel before, during, and after applying paint to the R portions of the first surface.
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. ( See 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 the swing panel by at least one of positioning the swing panel before, during, and after applying paint to the R portions of the first surface 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).
Claims 20-21 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. 20210346905 A1 to Schulze et al (hereinafter Schulze) 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 19 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20090204260 A1 to Bryne et al (hereinafter Bryne).
Regarding claim 20, Heldt teaches the vision guidance system is configured to coordinate positioning of the mobile robots relative to a travel path of the self-propelled cart to avoid collisions between the mobile robots and the self- propelled cart in a paint area and/or in areas around the paint area and to guide the robots during travel to and from the paint area, a paint refilling area, and a maintenance area.
Bryne is directed to an industrial robot using vision system to avoid collisions. (See Bryne, paragraphs 6, 8, 18, 60, 64, and 68.)
Bryne teaches a vision guidance system (camera or optical based detector ) configured to communicate with the second controller (26), to take at least one of images and video of the first surface (optical based sensor ) , and to determine a position of at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm (11, 10 second arm), and the paint applicator (first arm) based on the at least one of images and video of the first surface(optical based sensor), wherein the second controller (26) is configured to position the at least one of the mobile robot, the robot arm (11, 10), and the paint applicator (first arm) in response to the vision guidance system (camera or optical based detector ). (See Bryne, paragraphs 6-8, 10-11, 13-18, 21, 36-40, 44, 47-48, 50, 52-53, 57, 60, 62-64, 66, and 68.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to include the vision guidance system is configured to coordinate positioning of the mobile robots relative to a travel path of the self-propelled cart to avoid collisions between the mobile robots and the self- propelled cart in a paint area and/or in areas around the paint area and to guide the robots during travel to and from the paint area, a paint refilling area, and a maintenance area, because Bryne teaches this would enable detection and avoid collision with other objects. (See Bryne, paragraphs 6-8, 10-11, 13-18, 21, 36-40, 44, 47-48, 50, 52-53, 57, 60, 62-64, 66, and 68.)
Regarding claim 21, Heldt teaches the revised instructions direct the another mobile robot from the maintenance area relative to a travel path of the self-propelled cart and account for movement of the self-propelled cart relative to the travel path since the malfunction.
Heldt teaches the revised instructions direct the another mobile robot (second one of the robots) from the maintenance area relative to a travel path of the self-propelled cart and account for movement of the self-propelled cart relative to the travel path since the malfunction. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 19-20, 47-53, and Figs. 1-4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to include the revised instructions direct the another mobile robot from the maintenance area relative to a travel path of the self-propelled cart and account for movement of the self-propelled cart relative to the travel path since the malfunction, because Heldt teaches this would enable the robot to take over from the malfunctioning robot and complete the coating of the vehicle. (See Heldt, Abstract, paragraphs 19-20, 47-53, and Figs. 1-4.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-21 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. 20210346905 A1 to Schulze et al (hereinafter Schulze) is being used to address the limitations added to claim 11.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights