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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burzlaff (US20060288752A1) in view Sato (US20110107807A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burzlaff discloses a method for setting a roller hemming process for hemming a plurality of identical component arrangements (abstract; figs.1-7paragraphs 0002 and 0021-0023), comprising:
guiding a hemming roller (fig.1: (10)) arranged on a robot arm using the robot arm (paragraph 0041) in accordance with a predetermined hemming path in order to form a hemming flange of a component of one of the component arrangements (paragraphs 0023 and 0053-0054),
wherein the robot arm is controlled by a control unit to influence a hemming quality of the formed hemming flange (paragraphs 0021-0022 and 0058);
detecting an actual hemming process force acting on the hemming roller by the robot arm during forming (paragraphs 0023: actual force),
wherein the hemming process force is changed by a corresponding control of the robot arm by the control unit; and controlling the robot arm, by the control unit, to achieve a predetermined target hemming quality (paragraph 0023: target force), taking into account the detected actual hemming process force and an actual geometry of a formed hemming flange resulting from the forming (paragraphs 0021-0023).
Burzlaff does not disclose by a measuring element arranged between the robot arm and the hemming roller.
Sato teaches a method for setting a roller hemming process (abstract), comprising:
detecting, by a measuring element (fig.1: (16)) arranged between a robot arm (fig.1: (10)) and a hemming roller (fig.9: (34)), an actual hemming process force channelled from the robot arm through the measuring element to acting on the hemming roller by the robot during forming (paragraphs 0077-0091).
Both of the prior arts of Burzlaff and Sato are related to a method for setting a roller hemming process;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burzlaff by detecting, by a measuring element arranged between a robot arm and a hemming roller as taught by Sato, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having detecting, by a measuring element arranged between the robot arm and the hemming roller, an actual hemming process force channelled from the robot arm through the measuring element to acting on the hemming roller by the robot during forming.
Regarding claim 2, Burzlaff discloses wherein the hemming path is also detected during the forming (paragraph 0021).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3; Burzlaff disclose wherein the hemming path for the control of the robot arm by the control unit is described by a finite number of points representing the hemming path (paragraph 0041: robot arm; it is known in art that finite numbers (and specifically, finite, discrete states) are used in robotics).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4; Burzlaff in view Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein each point of the hemming path is assigned a target hemming process force, the actual hemming process force detected at this point, a target geometry for a formed hemming flange, and an actual geometry of a formed hemming flange detected at this point;
However, Burzlaff disclose a robot; a target hemming process force; and actual hemming process force (paragraphs 0021-0023 and 0041); and
wherein the hemming path for the control of the robot by the control unit is described by a finite number of points representing the hemming path (paragraph 0041: robot; it is known in art that finite numbers (and specifically, finite, discrete states) are used in robotics);
Further, it is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering practice for the finite numbers (and specifically, finite, discrete states) to be used in robotics; and the finite number of points specifically waypoints or nodes, is commonly used in robotics to represent the path of an object;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein each point of the hemming path is assigned a target hemming process force, the actual hemming process force detected at this point, a target geometry for a formed hemming flange, and an actual geometry of a formed hemming flange detected at this point; as a matter of routine engineering practice in order to in order to constantly optimize the movement trajectory when deviations between the actual force and the target force are detected or at least when a definitive tendency is recognized (Burzlaff: paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 5, Burzlaff discloses detecting an actual geometry for a still unformed hemming flange before a forming of the hemming flange (paragraph 0021).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Burzlaff discloses wherein the geometry is detected by an optical system and/or by a haptic system (paragraph 0021).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Burzlaff discloses wherein an actual hemming path is determined from the detected actual hemming process force and from the detected actual geometry (paragraphs 0021-0023).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Burzlaff discloses wherein an actual hemming path is determined by measurement (paragraphs 0021-0023).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Burzlaff discloses wherein a valid stiffness model for the robot arm is assigned to the predetermined hemming path (paragraph 0041: robot arm; it is known in art that a valid stiffness model serves as a mathematical representation used to accurately evaluate the stiffness characteristics of the robot).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Burzlaff discloses wherein at least one of the following criteria is recorded for the geometry of the hemming flange: a roll-in value; a packing dimension; an outer radius; an achieved pre-hemming angle; an opening angle; a position of the unhemmed component relative to a fixed reference point; a position of the hemmed component relative to a fixed reference point; a block clearance dimension; a flange length; a flange width (paragraph 0021-0023).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Burzlaff discloses wherein an adjustment of the hemming roller arm is varied by the robot in order to achieve the target hemming quality (paragraph 0021-0023).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Burzlaff discloses recording actual variables during a first hemming operation and bringing the actual variables closer to target variables in a subsequent second hemming operation (paragraph 0021-0023).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Burzlaff discloses wherein, taking into account actual variables detected during a first hemming operation for already hemmed points of the hemming path for subsequent points of the hemming path, the robot arm is controlled in such a way that the difference between actual variables and target variables is reduced (paragraph 0021-0023).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claims 15-16; Burzlaff in view Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the hemming process is additionally simulated in a computer-aided simulation model, wherein detected actual variables are transferred to the simulation model, and variables for the actual variables on which the simulation model is based are replaced by the transferred actual variables, an adjustment of the hemming roller to be implemented with the robot arm is simulated, taking into account these actual variables and the target hemming quality to be achieved, until the target hemming quality is achieved in the simulation model, and the next hemming operation is carried out with this simulated adjustment of the hemming roller; and wherein certain simulation values are specified by the computer-aided simulation model as initial process control parameters for the method for setting a roller hemming process.
However, Burzlaff disclose a robot (paragraph 0041);
Further, it is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering practice for computer-aided simulation models to be used in robotics; these simulations allow engineers to design, test, and refine robots within a virtual environment before building physical prototypes, which saves time, reduces costs, and eliminates risks associated with real-world testing
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the hemming process is additionally simulated in a computer-aided simulation model, wherein detected actual variables are transferred to the simulation model, and variables for the actual variables on which the simulation model is based are replaced by the transferred actual variables, an adjustment of the hemming roller to be implemented with the robot is simulated, taking into account these actual variables and the target hemming quality to be achieved, until the target hemming quality is achieved in the simulation model, and the next hemming operation is carried out with this simulated adjustment of the hemming roller; and wherein certain simulation values are specified by the computer-aided simulation model as initial process control parameters for the method for setting a roller hemming process; as a matter of routine engineering practice in order to in order to constantly optimise the movement trajectory when deviations between the actual force and the target force are detected or at least when a definitive tendency is recognized (Burzlaff: paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 17, Burzlaff discloses wherein the method is carried out as a method for optimizing a hemming quality and/or as an intermediate method for ensuring a hemming quality (paragraph 0021-0023).
Therefore, the modification of Burzlaff in view Sato teaches the limitations of claim 17.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burzlaff (US20060288752A1) in view Sato (US20110107807A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crivella (US20210245371A1).
Regarding claims 20-22; Burzlaff in view Sato does not explicitly disclose wherein the measuring element includes plural strain gages; wherein the strain gages are arranged in different orientations; wherein the measuring element is elastically deformable and the strain gages measure elastic deformation of the measuring element to detect the hemming process force.
Crivella teaches a robotic arm (abstract and paragraph 0032), comprising:
a measuring element includes plural strain gages; wherein the strain gages are arranged in different orientations; wherein the measuring element is elastically deformable and the strain gages measure elastic deformation of the measuring element to detect force (paragraphs 0081-0082)
Both of the prior arts of Burzlaff and Crivella are related to robotic arm;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring element of Burzlaff in view Sato to be wherein the measuring element includes plural strain gages; wherein the strain gages are arranged in different orientations; wherein the measuring element is elastically deformable and the strain gages measure elastic deformation of the measuring element to detect the hemming process force as taught by Crivella in order to have a fast and accurate force determination (Crivella: paragraph 0084).
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 MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
