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
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) 1-3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0075625) in view of Sakakibara et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0056181).
Regarding Claim 1, Mao teaches a robot arrangement, comprising:
a plurality of robots (Fig. 3, 10 & 20) for moving a part (Fig. 3, 30) into an assembly position adjacent a fixed part (Fig. 3, 50),
wherein the robots (Fig. 3, 10 & 20) are configured to support the part (Fig. 3, 30) and operate collectively to move the part (Fig. 3, 30) from an initial position ([0077]: near to an assembling station) located in a coarse adjustment zone into a fine adjustment zone ([0077]: assembling station) within a set distance of the fixed part (Fig. 3, 50), wherein the coarse adjustment zone is outside the fine adjustment zone ([0077]: an initial position near to an assembling station is expected to be outside the assembly station); and
in the fine adjustment zone ([0077]: assembling station), the robots are configured to collectively perform a rotational alignment cycle to rotationally align the part with the assembly position of the part ready for joining the part to the fixed part ([0081]: the object 30 is aligned with the targeted object 50. Different movements (Fig. 3, D1-D4) of the two robots in the first direction X would rotate the part in a X-Y plane as shown in Fig. 3.).
Mao does not explicitly teach upon completion of the rotational alignment cycle, collectively perform a solely translational movement, without rotation, to move the part into the assembly position; and wherein the assembly position is the position in which the part is attached to the fixed part.
Sakakibara teaches upon positioned at an approach start position for fitting, perform a solely translational movement, without rotation, to move the part into the assembly position ([0033]: the fitting part 4 is moved under speed and force control in accordance with the inserting/fitting direction (the Y-axis direction)) ([0042]: values of the target force with reference to the X-axis direction and Z-axis direction and with reference to the axes of rotation are “0”.)([0051]: a motion command is generated only with reference to the Y-axis translation direction. A motion command is not generated with reference to the X-axis direction and the Z-axis direction and with reference to the axes of rotation.); and wherein the assembly position is the position in which the part is attached to the fixed part ([0055]: when it is found that the robot has traveled the predetermined amount of fitting movement and the fitting operation has been completed...).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to collectively perform a solely translational movement, without rotation, to move the part into the assembly position upon completion of the rotational alignment cycle of Mao as taught by Sakakibara in order to improve the operation efficiency and the production efficiency as suggested in Sakakibara [0004]-[0008] & [0067].
Regarding Claim 2, Mao/Sakakibara teach the robot arrangement of claim 1, wherein, upon completing the rotational alignment cycle (Mao [0081]: the object 30 is aligned with the targeted object 50.), the robots (Mao Fig. 3, 10 & 20) are configured to collectively perform a translational alignment cycle to translationally align the part with the assembly position ([0042]: values of the target force with reference to the X-axis direction and Z-axis direction and with reference to the axes of rotation are “0”.)([0051]: a motion command is generated only with reference to the Y-axis translation direction. A motion command is not generated with reference to the X-axis direction and the Z-axis direction and with reference to the axes of rotation.); and wherein the assembly position is the position in which the part is attached to the fixed part ([0055]: when it is found that the robot has traveled the predetermined amount of fitting movement and the fitting operation has been completed...). Examiner notes that the claim language such as “configured to collectively perform a translational alignment cycle to translationally align the part with the assembly position.” is a statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the robots of Mao are clearly capable of performing the intended use. (see MPEP 2114)
Regarding Claim 3, Mao/Sakakibara teach the robot arrangement of claim 1, wherein the fine adjustment zone (Mao [0077]: assembling station) includes a fine translational adjustment zone nearest the fixed part within a second set distance of the fixed part (The fine translational adjustment zone would be a zone extending from the fixed part up to the location of the part at the end of the rotational alignment process. In other words, it is the zone where the part is translationally moved from the position at the end of the rotational alignment process to the fixe part according to Sakaibara.), wherein the robots are configured to translate but not rotate the part in the fine translational adjustment zone (Upon completion of the rotational alignment, the part would be moved in a translational direction only according to Sakakibara.) (Sakakibara [0051]: a motion command is generated only with reference to the Y-axis translation direction. A motion command is not generated with reference to the X-axis direction and the Z-axis direction and with reference to the axes of rotation.), and a fine rotational adjustment zone outside the fine translational adjustment zone, wherein the robots are configured to perform the rotational alignment cycle in the fine rotational adjustment zone (This is a zone wherein the part is rotationally aligned with the fixed part according to Mao.) (Mao [0081]: the object 30 is aligned with the targeted object 50. Different movements (Fig. 3, D1-D4) of the two robots in the first direction X would rotate the part in a X-Y plane as shown in Fig. 3.).
Regarding Claim 20, Mao/Sakakibara teach the robot arrangement of claim 1, further comprising an imaging system, the imaging system (Mao Fig. 2, 40A & 40B) comprising a tracker configured to determine a position of the part (Mao [0051]: the controller 60 cause the image sensor 40 to capture images 41A, 41B of the object 30 and the target object 50.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0075625) in view of Sakakibara et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0056181), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Ishida et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190283902).
Regarding Claim 4, Mao/Sakakibrar teach the robot arrangement of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the part comprises a set of temporary fastener holes, and wherein, upon moving the part into the assembly position, a robot is configured for inserting temporary fasteners into the temporary fastener holes to fasten the part to the fixed part.
Ishida teaches the part (Fig. 2, 52 & 53) comprises a set of temporary fastener holes ([0047]: keyhole), and wherein, upon moving the part (Fig. 2, 52 & 53) into the assembly position, a robot ([0047]: riveting robot) is configured for inserting temporary fasteners ([0047]: rivet) into the temporary fastener holes to fasten the part (Fig. 2, 52 & 53) to the fixed part (Fig. 2, 51) ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide keyholes in the part and the fixed part of Mao prior to assembly as taught by Ishida in order to temporarily secure the parts together as suggested in Ishida [0047].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0075625) in view of Sakakibara et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0056181), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Sarh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0217437).
Regarding Claim 5, Mao/Sakakibara teach the robot arrangement of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein, upon moving the part into the assembly position, a robot is configured to drill a plurality of fastener holes through abutting surfaces of the part and fixed part.
Sarh teaches upon moving the part (Fig. 4, 412) into the assembly position, a robot (Fig. 4, 400) is configured to drill a plurality of fastener holes (Fig. 4, 414) through abutting surfaces of the part and fixed part (Fig. 4, 412). ([0084])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drill fastener holes in the part and the fixed part of Mao/Sakakibara using a robot as taught by Sarh in order to permanently secure two parts in an automated manner as suggested in Sarh [0084].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0075625) in view of Sakakibara et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0056181), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Kawasaki (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0086403).
Regarding Claim 6, Mao/Sakakibara teach the robot arrangement of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the part is secured to a jig, the jig comprising a plurality of end effector connectors, each end effector connector configured to couple to an end effector of a respective one of the plurality of robots for manipulating the component.
Kawasaki teaches the part (Fig. 5, 14A) is secured to a jig (Fig. 5, 54), the jig comprising an end effector connector (Although it is not explicitly illustrated in the figures, it would be obvious for the robot arm (64) of Kawasaki to have a connector between the robot end effector and the jig such that the jig can be affixed to the end effector of the robot arm as shown in Fig. 5.), the end effector connector configured to couple to an end effector of the robots for manipulating the component (Fig. 5, 14A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a jig to hold the part of Mao as taught by Kawasaki when the shape/size of the part makes it difficult for the robot end effector of Mao to grasp.
Although Kawasaki does not teach a plurality of end effector connector or a plurality of robots, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of end effector connectors to the jig as Mao uses more than one robot to hold the part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections does not rely on the old combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights