DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 15-18, and 21-22 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9: “an joint” should be changed to --a joint--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, at lines 8-11:
wherein a handle, a stylus, and an joint between the handle and the stylus permitting movement of the stylus relative to the handle during said tracking movement of the mapping tool along the working path within the teaching workspace;
It is not clear how the handle, the stylus, and the joint are integrated into the method of claim 1. These elements are not tied into any method steps or other elements of claim 1. This phrase lacks a verb or action associated with the handle, the stylus, and the joint.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoener (US Publication No. 2022/0250183) in view of Boillot et al. (WO2005095043).
Knoener teaches:
Re claim 18. An automation system for facilitating automated robotic manufacturing processes, the automation system comprising:
a teaching subsystem comprising:
a mapping tool (welding torch 14, Figure 5); and
a tracking assembly configured for tracking movement of the mapping tool in a teaching workspace (training system 102, Figure 1; and paragraphs [0037 and 0050-0051]); and
a computing device having a processor and a memory, said processor in communication with the tracking assembly and the mapping tool (computer 18, processor 20, memory 22, sensors 118, and welding torch 14, Figure 2), said processor configured to:
receive tracking data from the tracking assembly and the mapping tool indicating movement of the mapping tool along a working path (paragraphs [0105-0106]: “the processor 20 may determine whether a trigger on the welding tool 304 has been pulled, whether welding current is flowing, and/or any other method of determining that a welding operation is occurring.” and “at block 1008 the sensors 118 and the processor 20 track a physical position and orientation of a welding tool (e.g., the welding tool 304) within the reference frame.”); and
based on said tracking data, automatically generate robot instructions (1018, Figure 10; and paragraphs [0037 and 0112]); and
a robotic assembly comprising:
a robot (robotic manipulator 106, Figure 1);
an end effector (torch 108, Figure 1); and
a robot controller configured to receive the robot instructions from the computing device and execute the robot instructions whereby the robot controller controls the robot and the end effector to conduct the automated robotic manufacturing process (robot control system 112, Figure 1; and paragraphs [0044 and 0112]).
Knoener fails to specifically teach: (re claim 18) wherein the robotic assembly further comprises a seam tracking/inspection assembly comprising a seam tracker and an inspector, the seam tracker comprises a first laser scanner configured to output a first signal indicating a first surface profile and the inspector comprises a second laser scanner configured to output a second signal indicating a second surface profile independent of the first laser scanner, the seam tracker being mounted on the end effector on a leading side of an application point of the end effector, and the inspector being mounted on the end effector on a trailing side of the application point, and wherein the seam tracking/inspection assembly is configured to align movement of the robotic assembly along the working path using the seam tracker and confirm in real time that the automated robotic manufacturing process is conducted properly using the inspector.
Boillot teaches, Fig. 6 and pages 11-12, “the imaging means 32 advantageously have a tracking 2D imager 34 for imaging the joint transverse profiles and an inspection 2D imager 36 for imaging the seam transverse profiles. More preferably, each of the 2-D imagers 34, 36 is provided with a CMOS sensor”; “The laser joining head assembly 10 of the present invention is also provided with processing means 38 operatively connected to the imaging means 32 for processing the joint profiles and the seam profiles to respectively provide joint data and seam data, thereby allowing to perform the joint tracking and the seam inspection of the joint during the motion.”; and “The laser light generator 20 and the tracking 2-D imager 34 are thus able to measure the depth profile along the tracking laser line, using the well known optical triangulation principle. This depth profile provides geometric information about the joint. This information can then be advantageously used by the processing means 38 to provide the joint tracking and monitoring, and adaptive process control functions. The laser light generator 28 and the inspection 2-D imager 36 are thus able to measure the depth profile along the inspection laser line, also using the well known optical triangulation principle. This depth profile provides geometric information about the seam. This information can then be advantageously used by the processing means 38 for inspection, quality control and adaptive welding control based on seam shape or joint geometry.”
In view of Boillot’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 the system as taught by Knoener, (re claim 18) wherein the robotic assembly further comprises a seam tracking/inspection assembly comprising a seam tracker and an inspector, the seam tracker comprises a first laser scanner configured to output a first signal indicating a first surface profile and the inspector comprises a second laser scanner configured to output a second signal indicating a second surface profile independent of the first laser scanner, the seam tracker being mounted on the end effector on a leading side of an application point of the end effector, and the inspector being mounted on the end effector on a trailing side of the application point, and wherein the seam tracking/inspection assembly is configured to align movement of the robotic assembly along the working path using the seam tracker and confirm in real time that the automated robotic manufacturing process is conducted properly using the inspector, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Boillot teaches using tracking and inspection laser light generators and imagers to provide joint tracking and seam inspection, thus providing adaptive welding control based on seam shape or joint geometry.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoener (US Publication No. 2022/0250183) in view of Boillot et al. (WO2005095043) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Asato et al. (US Publication No. 2025/0042018) and Vianello et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0038153).
The teachings of Knoener have been discussed above. Knoener fails to specifically teach: (re claim 22) the end effector comprises a sealing end effector comprising a dispensing assembly having mix-on-demand capabilities, the dispensing assembly comprising a nozzle, a base pump for pumping a sealant component, a catalyst pump for pumping a catalyst component, and a mixing head for mixing the sealant component and the catalyst component prior to application through the nozzle.
Asato teaches, at paragraph [0166], such robotic arms may be used for welding or sealing, thus increasing the number of applications such taught robotic arms may be used for.
Vianello teaches, at the abstract and paragraphs [0089 and 0091], sealing using an automatic machine may be performed using a dosage device extruding a bicomponent sealant. Such a device includes a nozzle, base and catalyst pumps, and a head.
In view of Asato and Vianello’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 the system as taught by Knoener, (re claim 22) the end effector comprises a sealing end effector comprising a dispensing assembly having mix-on-demand capabilities, the dispensing assembly comprising a nozzle, a base pump for pumping a sealant component, a catalyst pump for pumping a catalyst component, and a mixing head for mixing the sealant component and the catalyst component prior to application through the nozzle, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Asato teaches such robotic arms may be used for welding or sealing, thus increasing the number of applications such taught robotic arms may be used for, and Vianello teaches sealing using an automatic machine may be performed using a nozzle, base and catalyst pumps, and a head. Using such known sealing structures would yield the predictable results of applying sealant with an automatic machine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 15-17, and 21 are allowed.
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action by indicating the mapping tool includes “a handle, a stylus, and a joint…”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 3/4/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 22 and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 22 and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 3/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 and 22 under 35 USC § 103 in view of Knoener and Schwarz (2021/0187657) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Knoener as modified by Boillot et al. (WO2005095043) as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656