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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11/11/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "gripping arm" in regards to the structure of the gripper. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 only recites the gripper but none of the structure of the gripper itself.
Examiner notes that claim 19 recites subject matter similar to claim 14, and therefore it is likely that claim 19 should be dependent on claim 18, as claim 18 recites subject matter similar to claims 11-13, upon which claim 14 depends.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang (Document ID: KR 20210117441 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a system for mounting vehicle parts, the system comprising:
a mounting robot (see at least P [0001]: “an automatic plug mounting device and method for a vehicle body”);
a gripper coupled to an end portion of the mounting robot and including a gripping portion configured to grip the vehicle parts (plug mounting tool (30), see FIG. 2 and P [0058] wherein the mount frame (31) is at the end of the mounting robot and is part of the plug mounting tool for supporting a plug as a vehicle part); and
a controller operatively connected to the gripper and the mounting robot and configured to control an operation of the gripper to grip the vehicle parts and control movement of the mounting robot to a mounting portion of the vehicle body where the vehicle parts are to be mounted (controller (70) which is used in P [0066] to control “the overall system operation of the plug automatic mounting device (100)”, including for controlling the gripper to grip the vehicle parts and then moving the robot to a mounting portion of the vehicle body as in P [0067] and as initially described in P [0014]).
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches the system of claim 1, and Jang further teaches
a torque sensor coupled to the gripper and configured for measuring a torque value in response that the vehicle parts are mounted by the gripper (see at least P [0068]: “torque sensor applied to a handling robot (10)… in the direction in which the plug (3) is mounted”).
Regarding claim 9, Jang teaches the system of claim 8, and Jang further teaches that
the controller operatively connected to the torque sensor is further configured to analyze the torque value received from the torque sensor to determine a mounting state of the vehicle parts (see at least P [0068]: “the handling robot (10) can detect whether the plug (3) is incorrectly mounted in the discharge hole (2a) or a torque load applied to the arm when mounting the plug (3) through force control.”).
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches the system of claim 1, and Jang further teaches that
the gripper is a multi-gripper configured for gripping a plurality of vehicle parts (see at least FIG. 2 and P [0009] “a plurality of plug mounting tools”).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Ma et al., hereinafter Ma (Document ID: CN110696022A).
Regarding claim 2, Jang teaches the system of claim 1, and Jang further teaches in P [0032] numerous types of assembly processes that the mounting device can be used for, but not specifically that
the controller is further configured to control the gripper to grip the vehicle parts suitable for a vehicle type based on input vehicle data.
Instead, Ma, whose invention pertains to a multi vehicle adaptable gripper, teaches in at least P [0006] using a gripper that can “match a single gripper with multiple vehicle models and ensure the stability of the gripper in grasping the workpiece,” which thus involves checking the vehicle model as input vehicle data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple gripper of Jang with the adaptable multi-gripping method of Ma in order to avoid "the need to store a large number of vehicle model switching grippers" as in P [0023] of Ma.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Kurachi (Document ID: CN115107907A).
Regarding claim 3, Jang teaches the system of claim 1, and Jang further teaches the ability to detect whether mounting is normally and successfully performed. Jang additionally teaches setting a direction by a controller and using the force control to monitor whether the direction is proper in P [0047]. But Jang does not teach
a scanning device coupled to the mounting robot and configured to scan the mounting portion.
Instead, Kurachi, whose invention pertains to a mounting device, teaches a camera 80 which is used in P [0022] “to detect the positional offset between the opening and the hole 42 of the vehicle body 200”, in other words scanning the mounting portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the force monitoring and directional awareness of Jang with the camera monitoring of Kurachi in order to correct any positional shifts and provide mounting support during a mounting operation as in P [0030] of Kurachi.
Regarding claim 4, modified Jang teaches the system of claim 3, and Jang teaches checking whether the plug (3) is improperly mounted in the hole in at least P [0081]. Jang also teaches a new work path for mounting the vehicle parts to the mounting portion in at least P [0082].
But Jang does not explicitly teach that
the controller operatively connected to the scanning device is further configured to receive a scanned image from the scanning device to determine whether the mounting portion is defective, and in response that the mounting portion is defective, the controller is further configured to generate a new work path for mounting the vehicle parts to the mounting portion.
Instead, Kurachi teaches in P [0030]: “If the camera 80 detects a positional shift, the centralized control device 13 corrects the position of the mounting device 11 by controlling the robotic arm 12. Therefore, it is possible to suppress installation defects of the plug 100 caused by positional misalignment between the shaft 51 and the opening of the body 200.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the force monitoring and directional awareness of Jang with the camera monitoring of Kurachi in order to correct any positional shifts and provide mounting support during a mounting operation as in P [0030] of Kurachi.
Note, however, that Jang and Kurachi do not explicitly make reference to determin(ing) whether the mounting portion is defective, and performing the recalculation in response that the mounting portion is defective, but Jang does check the vacuum pressure of a mounting application in P [0081]-[0085] and Kurachi checks for proper alignment in P [0030], so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the installation checks based on force and image sensing of Jang and Kurachi with a specific check on the mounting hole itself in order to mitigate improper installation of a plug due to regular defects in the mounting hole itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would note that manufacturing defects and mitigation of defects is a crucial part of the efficiency based improvements that Jang and Kurachi aim to implement with their automated mounting strategies.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jang teaches the system of claim 3, but Jang does not teach that
the controller is further configured to match the scanned image with a vehicle body image for the mounting portion input in advance.
Instead, Kurachi teaches in P [0021] the use of a height measuring unit 70 as a laser displacement meter or any other non-contact/contact measuring device, which is used to collect an advance scan of the displacement between the hole plug 100 and the vehicle body 200. Then, in P [0030] “the centralized control device 13 controls the camera 80 via the control unit 90, thereby checking the positional offset between the front end of the shaft 51 and the opening of the vehicle body 200”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the force monitoring and directional awareness of Jang with the camera monitoring of Kurachi in order to correct any positional shifts and provide mounting support during a mounting operation as in P [0030] of Kurachi.
Although Jang and Kurachi do not explicitly teach that the advance detection is with a vehicle body image, Kurachi does teach collection of advanced data in P [0021], which is used as a reference in P [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the camera and monitoring of Jang and Kurachi with an image of the vehicle body beforehand in order to mitigate the possibility for installation defects due to a positional shift as in P [0030] of Kurachi. Comparing a reference image to the actual image would directly help prevent positional misalignment, which Kurachi explicitly aims to do.
Regarding claim 6, modified Jang teaches the system of claim 5, and in view of the modification Jang further teaches that
the controller is further configured to generate a robot path for moving the mounting robot to a matched mounting portion of the vehicle body to control the movement of the mounting robot according to the robot path (see at least P [0046]: “handling robot (10) moves along a teaching path set in response to the discharge hole (2a) of the body (1).”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jang teaches the system of claim 6, and in view of the modification Jang further teaches that
the controller is further configured to generate the robot path so that the gripper approaches the mounting portion in a normal direction of a surface of the vehicle body and to control the gripper to mount the vehicle parts on the mounting portion (see at least P [0061]: “move in the up-and-down direction (based on the drawing)”, see also FIG. 5 wherein the “up-and-down direction” is normal to the surface of the vehicle body when the gripper is controlled to mount the vehicle parts, as in FIG. 6).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Rossinger et al., hereinafter Rossinger (Document ID: DE102017121033A1).
Regarding claim 11, Jang teaches the system of claim 1, and Jang further teaches that the gripper includes:
a cylinder (operating cylinder (33));
a cylinder rod configured to be moved forward by the cylinder (operating rod (34));
But Jang does not teach
a gripping arm coupled to the cylinder rod;
Instead, Rossinger, whose invention pertains to a gripped system with numerous configurations of gripping elements, teaches in at least P [0060] and FIG. 1 the use of a second pneumatic connection Cn-10, as an arm capable of changing the position of a cylinder that holds air-active suction cups Cn-8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction gripper of Jang with the modifiable suction gripper arm extension of Rossinger in order to leverage interchangeable gripper designs for working on multiple different vehicle types as in P [0007] of Rossinger.
Finally, in view of the modification, Jang does teach
the gripping portion coupled to an end portion of the gripping arm (adsorption member (37) which supports the vehicle part and in Jang directly attaches to the cylinder rod, but in view of the modification would be at the end).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jang teaches the system of claim 11, and in view of the modification Jang further teaches that the gripper includes:
the cylinder, the cylinder rod, the gripping arm, and the gripping portion are formed in the plural, and wherein the plurality of cylinders are mounted on a plate and disposed at a same distance from a center portion of the plate (see at least FIGs. 2-3).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Wicks et al., hereinafter Wicks.
Regarding claim 15, Jang teaches the system of claim 1, and Jang further teaches
the gripping portion includes a suction pad with a hole formed in the suction pad, and air is drawn through a suction passage fluidically-communicating with the hole (see at least FIG. 2 and P [0063] which establishes an adsorption member (37) as a suction pad with a hole (39) for absorbing the plug with air as vacuum pressure. ).
But Jang does not explicitly teach that the suction pad is made of flexible material.
Instead, Wicks, whose invention pertains to a material handling system, teaches in at least P [0086] and FIG. 3A the use of a multi gripper with flexible suction cups 320.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction pad of Jang with the flexible suction cups of Wicks in order to protect the item carried by the gripper, as in P [0088] of Wicks which indicates using flexible suction cups on softer items and a rigid gripper when caution is less of a concern.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Kurachi, and further in view of Ma.
Regarding claim 16, modified Jang teaches the system of claim 3, and Jang further teaches a method of mounting the vehicle parts, the method comprising controlling, by the controller of the system for mounting the vehicle parts of claim 3, the gripper to grip the vehicle parts in at least P [0062] through supporting the plug (3). But Jang and Kurachi do not explicitly teach vehicle parts matching a vehicle type of input vehicle data.
Instead, Ma, teaches in at least [0006] using a gripper that can “match a single gripper with multiple vehicle models and ensure the stability of the gripper in grasping the workpiece,” which thus involves checking the vehicle model as input vehicle data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple gripper of Jang with the adaptable multi-gripping method of Ma in order to avoid "the need to store a large number of vehicle model switching grippers" as in P [0023] of Ma.
In view of the modification, Jang then teaches
controlling, by the controller, the movement of the mounting robot to the mounting portion (see at least P [0073] wherein the mounting robot is moved forward);
Jang teaches in at least P [0046]: “handling robot (10) moves along a teaching path set in response to the discharge hole (2a) of the body (1)” to generate a robot path for controlling the movement of the mounting robot to a mounting portion according to the robot path. But Jang does not explicitly teach
scanning, by the controller, the mounting portion by use of the scanning device;
matching, by the controller, a scanned image by use of the scanning device with a pre-input vehicle body image of the mounting portion to generate a robot path for controlling the movement of the mounting robot to a matched mounting portion according to the robot path; and
Instead, Kurachi teaches in P [0021] the use of a height measuring unit 70 as a laser displacement meter or any other non-contact/contact measuring device, which is used to collect an advance scan of the displacement between the hole plug 100 and the vehicle body 200. Then, in P [0030] “the centralized control device 13 controls the camera 80 via the control unit 90, thereby checking the positional offset between the front end of the shaft 51 and the opening of the vehicle body 200”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the force monitoring and directional awareness of Jang with the camera monitoring of Kurachi in order to correct any positional shifts and provide mounting support during a mounting operation as in P [0030] of Kurachi.
Although Jang and Kurachi do not explicitly teach that the advance detection is with a vehicle body image, Kurachi does teach collection of advanced data in P [0021], which is used as a reference in P [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the camera and monitoring of Jang and Kurachi with an image of the vehicle body beforehand in order to mitigate the possibility for installation defects due to a positional shift as in P [0030] of Kurachi. Comparing a reference image to the actual image would directly help prevent positional misalignment, which Kurachi explicitly aims to do.
In view of the modification, Jang then finally teaches
controlling, by the controller, the gripper moved to the matched mounting portion by the robot path and mounting the vehicle parts on the matched mounting portion (see at least P [0075]-[0078] wherein the insertion process is completed for mounting the part).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jang teaches the method of claim 16, and Jang further teaches
determining, by the controller, a mounting state of the vehicle parts by analyzing a torque value received in the mounting of the vehicle parts on the mounting portion from a torque sensor coupled to the gripper (see at least P [0068]: “torque sensor applied to a handling robot (10)… in the direction in which the plug (3) is mounted” as well as “the handling robot (10) can detect whether the plug (3) is incorrectly mounted in the discharge hole (2a) or a torque load applied to the arm when mounting the plug (3) through force control.”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Jang teaches the method of claim 16, and Jang further teaches
the robot path is generated so that the gripper approaches the mounting portion in a normal direction of a surface of the vehicle body (see at least P [0061]: “move in the up-and-down direction (based on the drawing)”, see also FIG. 5 wherein the “up-and-down direction” is normal to the surface of the vehicle body when the gripper is controlled to mount the vehicle parts, as in FIG. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Note, claim 19 recites subject matter similar to claim 14, but is not included here due to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20220184818 A1
Invention pertains to a suction gripper with movable suction cups.
Document ID: US 20190321982 A1
Invention pertains to robotic grommet installer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656