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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,258,225 B2 Marx et al., hereinafter Marx ‘255 in view of US 20200122317 A1 (Zaffaroni).
Regarding claim 1 and 5, claim 15 of Marx ‘225 teaches all the claimed limitations except for wherein the component mounting tool is supported on a multi-axis manipulator having a manipulator base; and wherein moving the component on the component mounting tool to the second, work position comprises moving the manipulator base from a first pose at the first position to a second pose having a different orientation at the second position.
Zaffaroni teaches the component mounting tool (elements, N1-N4 in fig. 1) is supported on a multi-axis manipulator (15 in fig, 1) having a manipulator base (T3 in fig. 2); and wherein moving the component on the component mounting tool to the second (Fig. 5A-6B), work position comprises moving the manipulator base (T3) from a first pose at the first position (Fig. 1-2, ¶0066, lines 43-44) to a second pose (Fig. 5A-6B, ¶0066 line 44-46) having a different orientation at the second position (it can be seen in Fig. 5A-6B that orientation is different than fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Marx ‘225 by incorporating the component mounting tool is supported on a multi-axis manipulator having a manipulator base; and wherein moving the component on the component mounting tool to the second, work position comprises moving the manipulator base from a first pose at the first position to a second pose having a different orientation at the second position in view of Zaffaroni in order to achieve articulation arm to move component mounting tool in horizontal or vertical attitude (¶0052, ¶0066 and Fig. 1-2 and Fig. 5A-6B).
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)(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20200122317 A1 (Zaffaroni).
Regarding claim 1, Zaffaroni teaches a method of handling components (element P in fig. 9A-9C) to be assembled to a product on an assembly line, the method comprising:
receiving the component (element P in Fig. 9A-9C) on a component mounting tool (elements N1-N4 in fig. 1) at a first (it can be seen in Fig. 1 and 2, ¶0066, lines 43-44), retracted position spaced from the assembly line, wherein the component mounting tool is in a first pose adapted to facilitate receiving or processing the component (see ¶0072 and ¶0074, picked up the piece P in the horizontal attitude. Horizontal attitude is interpreted as a retracted position in first pose); and
moving the component on the component mounting tool (elements N1-N4 in fig. 1) in a direction toward the assembly line to a second (Fig. 5A-6B, ¶0066 line 44-46), work position where the component mounting tool (N1-N4) is in second pose (Fig. 5A-6B, ¶0066 line 44-46) adapted to facilitate joining the component to the product (It can be seen in FIg.9A-9C and see ¶0074. ¶0066, vertical attitude is interpreted as a second pose);
wherein the component mounting tool (N1-N4) is supported on a multi-axis manipulator (15 in fig. 2) having a manipulator base (T3 in fig.2); and
wherein moving the component on the component mounting tool to the second (Fig. 5A-6B), work position comprises moving the manipulator base (T3) from a first pose at the first position (Fig. 1-2) to a second pose (Fig. 5A-6B) having a different orientation at the second position (it can be seen in Fig. 5A-6B that orientation is different than Fig. 1-2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200122317 A1 (Zaffaroni) in view of US 20210122062 A1 (Kllibarda et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Zaffaroni teaches the component mounting tool (N1-N4) comprises at least one air handler (Suction cups 1-4 in Fig. 1) configured to sealingly engage the component using vacuum pressure (¶0074, lines 23-25).
Zaffaroni does not explicitly teach the method further comprises selectively providing vacuum pressure to the at least one air handler.
Kllibarda et al. teaches the method further comprises selectively providing vacuum pressure to the at least one air handler (¶0079, control system 350 will send a signal to the holding element actuator 270 to selectively provide the air vacuum force 282 to only the first blocks 230A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Zaffaroni by incorporating the method further comprises selectively providing vacuum pressure to the at least one air handler in view of Kllibarda in order to achieve independent control of suction pressure of air handlers.
Regarding claim 3, Zaffaroni teaches wherein: the at least one air handler comprises a plurality of air handlers (Suction cups 1-4). Zaffaroni does not explicitly teach a plurality of air handlers configured to sealingly engage components having different geometries; and the method further comprises selectively indexing at least one of the plurality of air handlers to a position and orientation for sealingly engaging the component.
Kllibarda et al. teaches a plurality of air handlers (23, 230A, 230B in fig. 5) configured to sealingly engage components having different geometries (¶0076, Referring to FIGS. 2C and 6, examples of end effector 200 configured to selectively engage and disengage panels, for example glass panels 132 of different geometric dimension and/or contours) and the method further comprises selectively indexing at least one of the plurality of air handlers to a position and orientation for sealingly engaging the component (It can be seen in Fig.2B, 5A-5B, 6D-6E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Zaffaroni by incorporating a plurality of air handlers configured to sealingly engage components having different geometries; and the method further comprises selectively indexing at least one of the plurality of air handlers to a position and orientation for sealingly engaging the component in view of Kllibarda et al. in order to firmly hold irregular shape or geometry of component during assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Zaffaroni does not explicitly teach selectively providing vacuum pressure to the at least one air handler in cooperation with the indexing.
Kllibarda et al. teaches selectively providing vacuum pressure to the at least one air handler in cooperation with the indexing (¶0076, Referring to FIGS. 2C and 6, examples of end effector 200 configured to selectively engage and disengage panels, for example glass panels 132 of different geometric dimension and/or contours and indexing can be seen in fig. 2B, 5A-5B, 6D-6E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Zaffaroni by incorporating selectively providing vacuum pressure to the at least one air handler in cooperation with the indexing in view of Kllibarda in order to achieve independent control of suction pressure of air handlers while holding irregular shape or geometry of component during assembly.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200122317 A1 (Zaffaroni) in view of YouTube Video: BMW car Factory Robots (https://youtu.be/P7fi4hP_y80?si=w9jELHag_UbiuNQl : hereinafter BMW).
Regarding claim 5, Zaffaroni does not explicitly teach at least one of: adding sub-components to the component while the component is supported on the component mounting tool at the first position; or performing a manufacturing process on the component while the component is supported on the component mounting tool at the first position.
BMW teaches at least one of: adding sub-components to the component while the component is supported on the component mounting tool at the first position (see video from 2:55 to 3:08, it can be seen sub component is being installed on the component which is mounted on tool in first pose); or performing a manufacturing process on the component while the component is supported on the component mounting tool at the first position (see video from 2:32 to 2:54, it can be seen that manufacturing process is being done while component is mounted on tool in first pose).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Zaffaroni by incorporating at least one of: adding sub-components to the component while the component is supported on the component mounting tool at the first position; or performing a manufacturing process on the component while the component is supported on the component mounting tool at the first position in view of BMW in order to improve the efficiency of assembly line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited prior art also shows method of handling components. Specially, US 20090206216 A1 (Katsutani) teaches claimed subject mater of claim 3 as it can be seen in Fig. 1 and 2. US 5927021 A (Kowalski et al.) teaches claimed subject matter of claim 5: adding sub-component while component mounting tool is in first position (it can be seen in Fig. 12 column 6, lines 23-29).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. 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.
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights