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 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
The “determining a gluing mode” which is selected by a user interface. This is considered a mental process in which the gluing mode is observed or evaluated.
The “invoking a gluing solution” which involves an identification of the workpiece and selection of the appropriate/corresponding gluing solution. The selection of a gluing solution based upon a presented workpiece is a mental process of observation, evaluation and judgment.
The “instructing a gluing robot to perform a gluing operation based on the gluing solution” is another selection of a gluing operation. The selection of a gluing operation is again based upon a mental process of evaluation and judgment as to what an appropriate gluing operation would be based upon the selected gluing solution.
The “uploading gluing data to a device manufacturing execution system server” is considered the same as using a computer to store data on what gluing was done, which is equivalent to “remember”/writing down which is also considered a mental process.
Claim 6 further notes that the gluing mode can be switched to “manual” (in the determination of gluing mode). This supports the examiner’s position that when in manual mode, each of the mental steps (observing, evaluating, judging) are performed by the user’s mind. In contrast, claim 2 implements the abstract idea onto a control device in a gluing workstation. Implementing the evaluation with the control device in a workstation offers the particular practical application of automation of the gluing workstation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any further limitations that apply, rely on, or utilize the abstract idea in a manner than imposes meaningful limit on the abstract idea itself. The only non-abstract elements in claim 1 are the “allowing conveying” (passively met by not performing any action) and fixing of the workpiece (holding during gluing is implicitly occurring regardless of the gluing method steps).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, the additional elements merely “allow for conveyance” and “fixing” of the workpiece are not significant limitations and are not implemented with the abstract ideas.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (CN113290556; citations to machine translation) in view of KANGE et al. (US 2015/0165623).
Regarding claim 1,
WANG teaches a method for controlling the gluing path of a robot abstract. The method includes driving a conveying belt (allowing to move by conveying apparatus) abstract. The system is switched on by a power supply (gluing mode is set to “on”) page 1. Detecting objects to be coated with glue by camera, both 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional, and determining how to glue the object by consulting a database abstract (invoking a glue solution for the workpiece and instructing the robot to perform a gluing operation). After the gluing a detection device scans the product and compares to design parameters in step S5. The collection of data that is sent and compared to a design parameters is considered an uploading of gluing data.
WANG teaches transmission of the object to a 3D shooting area where the robot applies the glue abstract. The reference does not expressly teach fixing the workpiece into a position. However, KANGE teaches that when applying glue by robot, the workpiece is stationary or held by a robot [0023]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fix the workpiece in place to make it easier for accurate application of glue.
Regarding claim 2,
As described above, the system in WANG detects objects to be coated with glue by camera, both 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional, and determining how to glue the object by consulting a database abstract (invoking a glue solution for the workpiece and instructing the robot to perform a gluing operation). The two dimensional scan identifies the object type and the three-dimensional scan measures shape and size parameters of the object for the glue position and path (track) abstract.
Claim(s) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al. (CN113290556; citations to machine translation) in view of KANGE et al. (US 2015/0165623) further in view of BROGARDH et al. (US 2006/0181236).
Regarding claims 6 and 11,
As noted above, the gluing “mode” could be interpreted to mean “on” and “off”. The limitations in claim 6 further describe the gluing mode to switch to manual. BROGARDH teaches that when using a robot, it is advantageous to have a mode for manual positioning to allow an operator to easily orient the tool or workpiece [0044]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate a manual mode to the system of WANG to facilitate operator intervention. Operator intervention can happen at any time including a first piece.
Regarding claim 7,
WANG teaches detecting objects to be coated with glue by camera, both 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional, and determining how to glue the object by consulting a database abstract (requesting and retrieving a prestored gluing solution).
Regarding claim 8,
WANG teaches inspecting the glue applied after the gluing with a detection device that scans the product and compares to design parameters in step S5. The “sample box” would be the intended gluing path to which the robot has been instructed to discharge. The user is informed as to the position of the intended gluing path by seeing where the glue was applied.
Regarding claims 9 and 10,
The claim only requires regluing when the workpiece is interrupted. Accordingly, the claim limitation does not require the regluing and the limitation is met when the process is completed without interruption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3,
The examiner was unable to find prior art teaching the conveying apparatus to send a request to a control device at the gluing station to allow the workpiece to be moved. As claimed the conveying apparatus is querying the control to process a workpiece until the control returns a signal to allow movement. This is distinguished from the controller simply sending a ready status to the conveyor which can then convey or a conveyor sending a stop signal for whatever reason. The simple one way communication would causing conveyance without needing a single to be first sent from the conveyor. The controller still sends a signal to allow movement, but is not bombarded with requests from the conveyor.
Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 3 and are allowable by virtue of dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights