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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-6 and 20) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the component" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purpose, it is interpreted as “a part” recited in Claim 1.
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 Sakano (JP4603574) of which its corresponding English translation is cited.
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.
Sakano teaches upon completion of the rotational alignment cycle (page 2, last paragraph: The corner portions A to D below the fitting member 5 correspond to the corner portions A’ to D’ in the opening 6a of the fitted member.), collectively perform a solely translational movement, without rotation, to move the part into the assembly position (page 2, last paragraph: the fitting member 5 is moved in the direction of the arrow toward the fitted member 6).
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 Skakno in order to fit the part of Mao onto the fixed part with a good alignment as suggested in Sakano page 2, last paragraph.
Regarding Claim 2, Mao/Sakano teaches 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 (Sakano page 2, last paragraph: the fitting member 5 is moved in the direction of the arrow toward the fitted member 6). 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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to first translationally move the part in X and/or Y directions to a position above the fixed part as shown in Fig. 3 of Mao prior to finely adjusting the rotational position of the part to align with the fixed part since the translational movement is much simpler than the rotational movement using the two different robots.
Regarding Claim 20, Mao/Sakano 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 Sakano (JP4603574) of which its corresponding English translation is cited, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Ishida et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190283902).
Regarding Claim 4, Mao/Sakano 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 Sakano (JP4603574) of which its corresponding English translation is cited, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Sarh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0217437).
Regarding Claim 5, Mao/Sakano 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/Sakano 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 Sakano (JP4603574) of which its corresponding English translation is cited, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Kawasaki (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0086403).
Regarding Claim 6, Mao/Sakano 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 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.
Conclusion
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 1/21/2026
Prosecution Insights