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 Amendment
The amendment filed 5/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the combination of Jang and Ma fail to teach the newly amended limitation of claim 1 “wherein the controller is further configured to derive information on a part suitable for a vehicle type to be mounted based on input data of a vehicle to be mounted, and to control the gripper to grip the part suitable for the vehicle type to be mounted.” Applicant is thanked for the amendment that clarifies the possible intention of the claim language.
However, the presently amended claim is a new combination that incorporates new matter. The rejection below will further detail the issue of lacking support for the amended claim language. Additionally, in the interest of compact prosecution, it is important to note that the current claim recitation is somewhat unclear as to what the “information” is. The Examiner believes that the “information” is intended to imply a determination about the suitability of the part to match the vehicle it will be mounted on, but it is not explicitly clear since the claim limitation constitutes new matter.
Finally, Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) and corresponding dependents have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Drawings
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 derivation step of "information on a part suitable for a vehicle type to be mounted based on input data of a vehicle to be mounted" 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant indicates that support for the amended claim language is found in original claim 2, FIG. 2, and P [0051]-[0057] of the Specification. None of these locations provide sufficient support for what is essentially a new step in the claim limitation, specifically the step wherein “the controller is further configured to derive information on a part suitable for a vehicle type to be mounted based on input data of a vehicle to be mounted”. Claim 2 as originally filed only provided the control step, the flow chart of FIG. 2 only indicates at most a check after installation if the part is installed correctly, and the cited paragraph [0054] only concludes that the method makes it possible “to automatically install various plugs (a material, a shape, and the like) according to various vehicle types and specifications.”
Therefore, at no point in the aforementioned locations is there an explicit step for deriving information on a part suitable for a vehicle type to be mounted based on input data of a vehicle to be mounted. Claim 1 is thus rejected for introducing new matter. Claims 3-20 additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (Document ID: KR20210117441 A) in view of Iustin (Document ID: US 20230386271 A1).
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]).
Jang further teaches in P [0032] numerous types of assembly processes that the mounting device can be used for. In P [0072] Jang teaches using pressure at the gripper to control the gripper to grip the part, but not specifically
wherein the controller is further configured to derive information on a part suitable for a vehicle type to be mounted based on input data of a vehicle to be mounted, and to control the gripper to grip the part suitable for the vehicle type to be mounted.
Instead, Iustin, whose invention pertains to providing recommendation information about a vehicle and corresponding parts, teaches in P [0017] the use of “recommendation data” which “may contain information of one or more vehicle parts (such as the above-exemplified tires), components, subsystems, etc. that is/are recommended to be mounted to an identified vehicle.” See also P [0008] which demonstrates how the input data for a vehicle is based on chassis correspondence. Finally, in P [0055] “some vehicle parts may be mounted automatically by for example robots 16.”
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 multi-gripper and gripper control of Jang with the vehicle part to vehicle type correspondence of Iustin in order to avoid the time consuming procedures described by Iustin in P [0004]. Iustin describes that having the input vehicle data appear automatically prevents time consumption for worker diagnostic tool use.
Regarding claim 8, modified 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, modified 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, modified Jang teaches the system of claim 1, and Jang further teaches that
the gripper is a multi-gripper configured for gripping the vehicle parts (see at least FIG. 2 and P [0009] “a plurality of plug mounting tools”).
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Iustin, and further 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 and Iustin do 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 and Iustin 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 and Iustin do 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 and Iustin 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, Iustin, 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 and Iustin do 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 and Iustin 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, Iustin, 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 Iustin, and further 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 and Iustin do 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 and Iustin 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 Iustin, and further 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 and Iustin do 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 and Iustin 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 Iustin and Kurachi, and further in view of Iustin.
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 does not explicitly teach vehicle parts matching the vehicle type of input vehicle data.
Instead, Iustin, whose invention pertains to providing recommendation information about a vehicle and corresponding parts, teaches in P [0017] the use of “recommendation data” which “may contain information of one or more vehicle parts (such as the above-exemplified tires), components, subsystems, etc. that is/are recommended to be mounted to an identified vehicle.” See also P [0008] which demonstrates how the input data for a vehicle is based on chassis correspondence. Finally, in P [0055] “some vehicle parts may be mounted automatically by for example robots 16.”
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 multi-gripper and gripper control of Jang with the vehicle part to vehicle type correspondence of Iustin in order to avoid the time consuming procedures described by Iustin in P [0004]. Iustin describes that having the input vehicle data appear automatically prevents time consumption for worker diagnostic tool use.
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 and Iustin do 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 and Iustin 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, Iustin, 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, Iustin, 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 18-19 were previously objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the claims currently stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights