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 .
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20180009105 by Kutsukake et al. in view of US Patent 8651046 by Davancens et al. and US Patent 11951635 by Oridate et al.
Claim 1: Kutsukake discloses an assembly system for applying a sealant to seams on a part (0003, sealant application robot), said part including gauge reference holes (0033 “bottom 11 includes a plurality of position-detecting reference holes”), said system comprising: a first assembly station (See e.g. Figure 2) including at least one station vision sensor (“3”) and at least one robot (0028) having a dispense applicator (0028, sealing gun), said dispense applicator being configured to apply the sealant to the seams (0028 “sealing gun 15d spray a sealant onto the seams”), said at least one station vision sensor at the first assembly station providing images of the gauge reference holes on the part (0057 “cameras 3 are cameras to detect the reference holes”)
a second assembly station positioned downstream from the first assembly station and including at least one station vision sensor (See e.g. Figure 2) and at least one robot and said at least one station vision sensor at the second assembly station providing images of the gauge reference holes on the part (0057 “cameras 3 are cameras to detect the reference holes”);
Kutsukake discloses a first and second sealant robot and discloses “In another possible embodiment, the three-dimensional sensors 2 may be mounted on the sealing robots” (0066); however, fails to disclose the sealant robots include a robot vision sensor as claimed. However, Davencens, also in the art of sealant robot for application of a seam to a vehicle, discloses including a robot vision sensor on the robot sealant applicator to provide a image of a location onto which the sealant is applied and/or to view the amount of sealant applied (column 8, lines 4-10, “sensor system 512 includes camera system 532 and camera system 534. Camera system 532 may be used for viewing the location onto which sealant is to be applied. For example, camera system 532 may be positioned to view the part, fastener, and/or seam onto which the sealant is to be applied. Camera system 534 may be used for viewing the amount of sealant applied to a location”). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified Kutsukake to include the robot vision sensor as taught by Davencens to reap the benefits of providing images of the area for application (i.e. seams) and the amount of sealant applied to a specific location.
Kutsukake with Davencens discloses sealant robots for applying sealing via an industrial robot; however, the references fail to disclose the second robot includes a skive as claimed. However, Oridate, also in the art of a industrial robot for application of a sealant to seams and using various sensors to control the robot and sealant application to the seam (see e.g. abstract). Oridate discloses the robot includes a wiping tool (reasonably reads on the term skive), (column 7, lines 1-10 “the robot may be instructed to utilize a sealant wiping tool or some other removal tool to remove a recently applied sealant, traverse the surface 306 of the target object 302, receive updated sensor input, further update the updated trajectory 312, and traverse the seam 304 using the further updated trajectory 312 to reapply the sealant to seam 304—thereby removing the previous detected errors.”). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a wiping tool, such as a skive, to the sealant robot to reap the benefits as outlined by Oridate.
As for the control, Kutsukake discloses a control system responsive to signals from the station vision sensors, said control system using the signals from the station vision sensors at both the first assembly station and the second assembly station to identify the orientation and location of the part in space and using the signals from the robot vision sensors on the at least one robot at the first assembly station to provide an offset of the seams relative to the gauge reference holes on the part, said control system providing the offsets from the first assembly station to the second assembly station so that the second assembly station knows the location of the seams relative the gauge reference holes determined at the first assembly station (see Figure 4, 0035-0045, 0036, “The three-dimensional shape of the bottom 11 measured by the shape measurer 22 is output to the first robot controller 30 and the second robot controller 40” and 0044 “the first robot controller 30 and the second robot controller 40 may be integrated as one controller”).
Each of Davencens and Oridate disclose the control system is responsive to signals from the (Davencens at Figure 11 and accompanying text, Oridate at Figure 6 and accompanying text) and therefore using the control sytems to receive signals from the robot vision sensors would have been obvious to provide control over the sealant application.
Claim 2: Davencens discloses the control system uses the signals from the robot vision sensor on the at least one robot at the first assembly station to measure a size of the sealant that has been dispensed by the dispense applicator, said control system controlling a dispensing pressure of the dispense applicator so as to maintain a certain size of the sealant (column 10, lines 4-25) and therefore using such a control would have been obvious and predictable to achieve the desired and optimum sealant application.
Claim 3: Davencens discloses the control system uses the signals from the robot vision sensor on the at least one robot at the first assembly station to measure the size of the sealant at multiple points on the seam to provide individual seam width data (column 10, lines 4-25, “The process may monitor the location and/or the amount of sealant 304 being applied to the location (operation 1101). This monitoring may be performed using sensor system 326.”).
Claim 4: The size of the sealant bead is not specifically outlined by the prior art; however, the bead width would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as a result effective variable, each of prior art reference concerned with optimizing the amount of sealant applied (too much sealant needs to be removed and too little is not a proper application of sealant) and therefore taking the level of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum bead width through routine experimentation to achieve the desired sealant application.
Claim 5: The combination of Kutsukake with Oridate would make obvious the first and second robot including a dispensing and skive as instantly claimed, see discussion above related to wiping.
Claim 6: Each of Kutsukake (0016) and Davencens disclose a vehicle (column 1, lines 10-20). Additionally, vehicle is met by Oridate (as the term vehicle does not impart structure to the object worked upon). Finally, the substrate is intended use and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 7: Kutsukake discloses station visions sensors at each of the first and second station (Figure 1 and 2) and discloses the cameras on one side of the part and cameras on opposite side of the part (see Figure 1, where camera’s 3 are located at first and second sides of the part at both the first and second station). As for the number of camera’s, Kutsukake discloses various numbers, including 4 (0027 “four cameras”) and locating those cameras to achieve the position of the body and detection accuracy (0027) and determination of location/arrangement of sensor would have been obvious in view of detection accuracy (see 0027).
Claim 8: Kutsukake discloses robots can be movable (0028-0029); however, fails to discloses a the plurality of robots at each of the first and second station; however, the duplication of robots would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to increase the number of robots and determine their location, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 9-15: The limitations of these claims are all addressed above and therefore these claims are made obvious for the reasons as set forth above.
Claim 16-20: The limitations of these claims are all addressed above and therefore these claims are made obvious for the reasons as set forth above.
Claim(s) 8, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutsukake et al. in view of Davancens et al. Oridate et al. as applied above and further with EP 0745429, hereinafter EP 429.
Examiner maintains the position as set forth above; however, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner cites here EP 429, also in the art of automobile production with sealing robots and discloses including a plurality of stations, each with a first and second sealing robot on one side and a third and fourth on the opposite side (see Figure 1 and accompanying text) and including robots on rails to slidably position the robots (see “a sealing robot S that travels along the traverse axis 35 and seals”) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have provide the sealing robots as claimed to provide sealing of the automotive part. As for each of the robots slidably positioned, EP 429 discloses the use of stage (i.e. rail) to allow the robot to traverse during the sealing application and provide additional sealing location capabilities and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the robots, first, second third and fourth, slideable attached as Kutsukake discloses robot moving and EP 429 disclose sealing robots are not to travel alone a rail to provide sealing application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights