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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 700. 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. 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.
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 “robotic arm” of claim 1, “configured to move in 6 degrees of freedom” of claim 7, “a cup…a cone” of claim 9 and “the first locating element comprises a screw hole; and using the first locating element to support the component in the desired position comprises using a screw fitting to attach ethe component to the interface node via the hole and the screw hole” of claim 12 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: it appears there is a typographical error in line 3 and “comprises” should read “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: it appears there is a typographical error in line 6 and “of third component” should read “of the third component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: it appears there is a typographical error in line 3 and “so that that” should read “so that the”. 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 7, 9, and 11 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.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a robotic arm” in line 3 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to claim another robotic arm, or the same robotic arm of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will treat the limitation in claim 7 as referring to the same robotic arm as positively recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, lines 9-17, the limitations "a face", "a flat surface", "a corner", "a point", "a hole", "an edge", "a circular wall", "a cone", and "a cup" are vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to the instance of each element previously recited in claim 9, or a different element. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will treat the limitations as reference to the corresponding previously recited limitation in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations in lines 2-3, “a face” and “a flat surface” are vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to the instance of each element previously recited in claim 11, or a different element. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will treat the limitations as reference to the corresponding previously recited limitation in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brudniok et al., US10836046.
Regarding independent claim 1, Brudniok et al. discloses an interface node for enabling a robotic arm to be used as a reconfigurable fixture for vehicle manufacture (11, Fig. 4), the interface node comprising: an attachment element for attaching the interface node to the robotic arm (13 attaches to 8, Fig. 4); a first locating element comprising a flat surface (flat end of 16.1, 16.2, 16.3), the flat surface being suitable for locating a first feature of a first component (16.1 is capable of locating a first feature of a first component), wherein the first feature comprises a face of the first component (cube of Fig. 8); and a wall extending from and substantially around the flat surface (16.1, 16.2, 16.3), the wall connecting the flat surface to the attachment element (16.1, 16.2, 16.3 connecting flat surface with 12, 13, Fig. 8), wherein the wall defines a second locating element, for locating a second feature of a second component (wall of 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 defines second locating element which locates a feature of the cube of Fig. 8, or object of Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Brudniok et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and the second feature of the second component is an edge of the second component (edge of cube of Fig. 8, or edge of object of Fig. 9); the flat surface is circular (element 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 of Fig. 13 shows flat surface is circular); the wall is cylindrical (element 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 of Fig. 13 shows wall is cylindrical); and the second locating element is the cylindrical wall and a tangent to the cylindrical wall being usable to locate the edge of the second component (cylindrical wall of elements 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 suitable for locating edge of cube of Fig. 8 or object of Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Brudniok et al., discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein: the second feature of the second component is a corner of the second component (corner of object of Fig. 9); the flat surface is a rectangle (16.1, 16.2, 16.3 flat surface at end is rectangular, Fig. 9); the wall is a rectangular prism (wall of 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 are rectangular prisms, Fig. 9); and the second locating element is a corner on the wall or a corner joining the flat surface to the wall (corners of 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 are second locating element, Fig. 9), wherein the corner on the wall or joining the flat surface and the wall being usable to locate the corner of the second component (corners of 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, Fig. 9 are usable for locating the corner of the object, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Brudniok et al., discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein: the attachment element (13, Fig. 4) is on an opposite side of the interface node to the flat surface (13 is opposite to flat surface end of 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Brudniok et al., discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the attachment element comprises: a clamp up location for clamping the interface node to the robotic arm (13 for clamping to robotic arm 8, Fig. 4); and a datum face for ensuring a known interface point between the robotic arm and the interface node (Column 13, lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 7, Brudniok et al., discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a device for use as a reconfigurable support for vehicle manufacture (Column 14, line 38-53; reconfigurable support would be capable of use in vehicle manufacture), the device comprising: a robotic arm configured to move in 6 degrees of freedom (1, 1b, Fig. 2); wherein the interface node is connected to the robotic arm via the attachment element of the interface node (11 connected via 8, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Brudniok et al., discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the first component and the second component are the same (cube of Fig. 8 is first and second component).
Regarding claim 18, Brudniok et al., discloses the limitations of claim 3, and wherein the first component and the second component are the same (cube of Fig. 8 is first and second component).
Regarding claim 19, Brudniok et al., discloses the limitations of claim 4, and wherein the first component and the second component are the same (cube of Fig. 8 is first and second component).
Claim(s) 8-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Truebenbach et al., US20210154832.
Regarding independent claim 8, Truebenbach et al. discloses a method for locating a component of a vehicle relative to a vehicle build volume (Fig. 60; Paragraph [0212]), the method comprising: identifying a first feature of the component (Paragraph [0008]), wherein the first feature of the component needs to be located to a desired position relative to the vehicle build volume (Paragraph [0008], lines 10-15); selecting a first locating element of an interface node connected to a robotic arm, wherein the interface node comprises one or more locating elements, each locating element of the one or more locating elements being for locating a feature of a component and the first locating element is selected from the one or more locating elements to be suitable for locating the first feature of the component (Paragraph [0007], lines 7-13; Paragraph [0008], lines 6-7)); determining a locating position for the first locating element based on the desired position of the first feature of the component; moving the interface node using the robotic arm to position the first locating element at the locating position (Paragraph [0008], lines 3-7); and positioning the component relative to the vehicle build volume using the first locating element to locate the first feature of the component and hence the component with respect to the vehicle build volume (Paragraph [0007], lines 13-27).
Regarding claim 9, Truebenbach et al. discloses the limitations of claim 8, and wherein: the one or more locating elements comprise at least one of a flat surface (Fig. 38); the first feature of the component comprises at least one of a face (face of pipe fitting gripped by flat surface of interface node locating element, Fig. 38); and the selecting of the first locating element of the one or more locating elements on the interface node is based on the first feature of the component, the selecting comprises: if the first feature of the component is a face, selecting a flat surface of the interface node as the first locating element (Paragraph [0146]).
Regarding claim 10, Truebenbach et al. discloses the limitations of claim 8, and wherein positioning the component relative to the vehicle build volume further comprises: using the first locating element to support the component in the desired position (Fig. 38, Paragraph [0146]).
Regarding claim 11, Truebenbach et al. discloses the limitations of claim 10, and the first feature comprises a face (face of pipe fitting gripped by flat surface of interface node locating element, Fig. 38); the first locating element comprises a flat surface (flat surface of gripper, Fig. 38); and using the first locating element to support the component in the desired position comprises supporting the face of the component on the flat surface of the interface node (Paragraph [0146], Fig. 38).
Regarding claim 13, Truebenbach et al. discloses the limitations of claim 8, and further comprising: attaching the component to the vehicle build volume so that that component is supported by the vehicle build volume (Paragraph [0008], lines 15-17; Paragraph [212], [213]); and moving the interface node away from the locating position using the robotic arm (Paragraph [0214], Fig. 60).
Regarding claim 14, Truebenbach et al. discloses the limitations of claim 8, and further comprising: identifying a second feature of a second component that needs to be located to a second desired position relative to the vehicle build volume (Fig. 60; method repeated for a variety of components; Paragraph [0008]); selecting a second locating element of the one or more locating elements on the interface node based on the second feature of the second component; determining a second locating position for the second locating element based on the second desired position (Paragraph [0007], lines 7-13; Paragraph [0008], lines 6-7); moving the interface node using the robotic arm to position the second locating element at the second locating position (Paragraph [0008], lines 3-7); and positioning the second component relative to the vehicle build volume using the second locating element to locate the second feature of the second component and hence the second component with respect to the vehicle build volume (Paragraph [0007], lines 13-27).
Regarding claim 15, Truebenbach et al. discloses the limitations of claim 8, and wherein moving the interface node using the robotic arm to position the first locating element at the locating position comprises: using the robotic arm to move the interface node in 6 degrees of freedom to drive the interface node such that the first locating element is moved to the locating position (Paragraph [0007], lines 13-27; Paragraph [0008]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brudniok et al., US10836046 in view of Suzuki et al., US10906182.
Regarding claim 2, Brudniok et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a third component comprises a point of the third component (a point of the third component could be any point on cube of Fig. 8, or object of Fig. 9).
Brudniok et al. does not disclose a third locating element comprises one or more holes in the flat surface, each hole of the one or more holes being suitable for locating a third feature of a third component.
Suzuki et al. teaches a third locating element comprises one or more holes in the flat surface (222, 221, Fig. 4A), each hole of the one or more holes being suitable for locating a third feature of a third component (322, 321, Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Brudniok et al. and Suzuki et al. to have a third locating element comprising one or more holes so that the component "can be positioned with respect to the robot hand with high accuracy" (Column 7, lines 55-61). One would have been motivated to make this modification to more accurately position the component with respect to the interface node.
Regarding claim 17, modified Brudniok et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2, and the third component and the second component are the same (object of Figure 9 or cube of Figure 8 can be used as third component, using any point on object/cube, and as second component).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truebenbach et al., US20210154832.
Regarding claim 12, Truebenbach et al. discloses the limitations of claim 10, and the first feature comprises a hole (Fig. 25), and the first locating element comprises a screw hole (Fig. 26, screw hole center of pipe fitting), and using the first locating element to support the component in the desired position (Paragraph [0141], lines 9-11).
Truebenbach et al. does not disclose using a screw fitting to attach the component to the interface node via the hole and the screw hole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try using a screw fitting to attach the component to the interface node, as it is one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (suction, magnet, press-fit, snap-fit, screw). One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to ensure the component is secured during transport of the component from one location to the next.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights