DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on 11/18/2024.
Claims 1-20 are original.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
The IDS has been considered.
This action is made Non-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Michael Anderson.
Claim Objection
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 11 “adjusting, according to a control of a worker by using the cooperative robot…”. This phrasing is awkward. Suggested correction: It should recite “adjusting, according to worker input via the cooperative robot…”
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality:
Grammatical Informality --
“so that a load caused by the heavy object is all applied on the balancer”
Should be: “is entirely applied to” or “is fully borne by” the balancer.
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 9 (as well as dependent claims due to dependency 10) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites:
“a direct teaching mode in which a driving force and a brake of a robot driving shaft are released such that each driving shaft is capable of being rotated by an external force”
The claim first introduces “a robot driving shaft” (singular), then immediately refers to “each driving shaft” (plural), implying multiple shafts were previously introduced. This creates an internal inconsistency — a single shaft was introduced, yet the claim treats the element as plural.
Claim 10 compounds the problem:
“torque applied to the driving shaft exceeds a predetermined reference value”
It is unclear whether “the driving shaft” refers to:
The singular “robot driving shaft” first introduced;
Any individual one of the multiple shafts implied by “each driving shaft”; or
All shafts collectively.
The specification (¶ [141]) confirms the cooperative robot is a six-axis multi-articulated robot with multiple driving shafts, but the claim language fails to properly introduce them.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Suggested Correction: Amend claim 9 to recite:
“…a direct teaching mode in which a driving force and a brake of each of a plurality of robot driving shafts are released such that each driving shaft is capable of being rotated by an external force…”
Then amend claim 10 to:
“…when torque applied to any one of the plurality of driving shafts exceeds a predetermined reference value…”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–8 and 10–20 are allowed. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.Regarding Independent Claim 1: The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or reasonably suggest:
A heavy object precision assembly device comprising: a gripper configured to grip a heavy object to be assembled; a cooperative robot configured to adjust a position and an angle of the gripper; a balancer configured to supplement a payload of the cooperative robot and to support the gripper; a loader arm configured to support the balancer and the cooperative robot; and a servo gantry configured to support the loader arm at an upper side of an assembly object with which the heavy object is to be assembled, the servo gantry being configured to allow the loader arm to perform a planar movement in a horizontal direction.
The closest prior art of record includes:
US 2017/0157778 A1 (Lee) — discloses a cooperation robot for a vehicle production system comprising a multi-axis arm with a gripper, a force torque (FT) sensor, and a force compliance control mode in which a worker applies external force to adjust the position of a bumper. Lee also discloses a gravity compensation apparatus. However, Lee’s cooperative robot is a floor-mounted, standalone unit. Lee does not teach or suggest a loader arm supported by a servo gantry, nor does Lee teach a balancer configured to supplement the payload of the cooperative robot and directly support the weight of the gripper and gripped heavy object. Lee’s gravity compensation apparatus is a counterweight mechanism for reducing rotational torque on the robot body—it does not function as a load-bearing balancer that directly supports the weight of the assembly object.
US 2006/0226106 A1 (Zaguroli) — discloses a balancer hoist with an overhead rail, a traversing trolley, and a float mode in which the load weight is balanced so that a worker can guide the load by pulling on the chain. However, Zaguroli does not teach or suggest a cooperative robot configured to adjust the position and angle of a gripper. Zaguroli’s system uses a simple chain and hook/eye for load support, not a multi-axis cooperative robot for precision orientation adjustment.
KR 102847708 B1 (Kim) — discloses an electric vehicle battery case production gantry transport system comprising a support with running rails, a horizontal transport unit with a servo motor, a vertical transport unit, and a case gripper. However, Kim does not teach or suggest a cooperative robot configured to adjust the position and angle of the gripper in response to worker-applied force, nor does Kim teach a balancer configured to supplement the payload of such a cooperative robot.
US 2017/0157778 A1 (Lee) — while teaching force compliance control responsive to worker input, does not provide motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to mount the cooperative robot on a gantry-suspended loader arm together with a separate balancer. The floor-mounted architecture of Lee’s system is integral to its collision detection and gravity compensation design.
None of the cited references, alone or in any permissible combination, teaches or suggests the specific structural arrangement in which a servo gantry supports a loader arm, and the loader arm in turn supports both a balancer (configured to supplement the payload of the cooperative robot and support the gripper/heavy object weight) and a cooperative robot (configured to adjust the position and angle of the gripper). This architecture enables a synergistic division of labor in which the balancer bears the weight that would otherwise exceed the cooperative robot’s payload capacity, while the cooperative robot provides precision orientation adjustment—all suspended from an overhead gantry for large-scale horizontal transport. This combination is neither taught nor rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
To combine the cited references to arrive at the claimed invention would require impermissible hindsight reconstruction, as no reference provides motivation to mount a cooperative robot on a gantry-hung loader arm alongside a separate load-bearing balancer in the manner claimed.
Regarding Independent Claim 11:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach or reasonably suggest:
A heavy object precision assembly device control method comprising: moving a loader arm toward a heavy object on a pallet by using a servo gantry; gripping the heavy object by using a gripper supported on the loader arm; unloading the heavy object from the pallet by using a cooperative robot; moving, by using the servo gantry, the heavy object to an assembly object with which the heavy object is to be assembled; adjusting, according to a control of a worker by using the cooperative robot, a position and an orientation of the heavy object gripped on the gripper, thereby aligning the heavy object to an assembly position of the assembly object; and releasing, by using the gripper, gripping of the heavy object when an assembly of the heavy object is completed.
The combination of method steps—particularly the sequential use of a servo gantry for macro-transport, a cooperative robot for unloading from a pallet, and then worker-guided force compliance control via the cooperative robot for final precision alignment—performed in the structural context of a loader arm supporting both a cooperative robot and a balancer, is not taught or suggested by any combination of the prior art of record. US 2023/0173673 A1 (Lieret) and US 2024/0208053 A1 (Lieret), while disclosing robotic assembly of vehicle parts including car doors, are directed to autonomous parameter tuning for fully automated force-controlled assembly and explicitly identify the worker-guided alignment step as the prior art problem to be eliminated—thereby teaching away from the claimed method.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2–10 and 12–20:
Claims 2–10 depend from allowable Claim 1 and Claims 12–20 depend from allowable Claim 11. These claims are allowable at least by virtue of their dependency on an allowable independent claim, and further recite additional limitations (e.g., the specific balancer modes of position hold and load guided, the spherical bearing connection, the cooperative robot operating modes, and the specific mode-switching sequences during assembly) that are not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-4pm.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Mike Anderson
Supervisor Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights