DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes that the term “selectably” which appears in Claims 1 and 11, as far as Examiner is aware, does not appear in English dictionaries and may not be considered a real word in the English language. However, Examiner also recognizes that word is used with relative frequency in patent claims and will withdraw this objection if Applicant prefers to proceed with the use of the term rather than replacing its use with equivalent uses of the term “selectable”. Examiner notes that the term will be interpreted as having the appropriate meaning as if the limitation was written using the term “selectable”.
Double Patenting
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should Claim 1 be found allowable, Claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. The reverse is also true. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Examiner notes that the only distinction at present is that Claim 1 recites a “range of motion” whereas Claim 11 recites a “level range of motion”. It is unclear if there is a distinction between “range of motion” and “level range of motion” as the two terms appear to be used interchangeably within Applicant’s specification and are at most potentially implied as separate. For example, see [0031] which appears to be the earliest use of the term “level range of motion” which reads “The range of motion is in a level plane LP (where the range of motion may be referred to herein as a level range of motion), where the level plane LP, as described herein, may be moved in elevation along the substantially vertical axis of motion (also referred to herein as a Z-axis) VAX of the drive section 310”. Examiner notes that the recited portion does not recite “The range of motion is in a level plane LP (wherein a range of motion in the level plane LP may be referred to herein as a level range of motion), where the level range of motion, as described herein, may be moved in elevation along the substantially vertical axis of motion (also referred to herein as a Z-axis) VAX of the drive section 310” (emphasis added).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Drive section in Claims 1, 11, 21, and 25. It appears to encompass all actuators of the robotic multi-link arm as well as any actuators which move the arm as a whole, where said actuators may be freely located. See at least box of drive section 310 in Figure 3A.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 – 20 and 25 – 28 are 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15, 17, 25, and 27 recite the limitation “maximize the range of motion”, “maximize the level range of motion”, “minimize a dimension”, or “the offset is sized to provide maximum range of motion” respectively. Applicant does not appear to disclose any technique or method by which the range of motion might be maximized or the dimension minimized in detail. Applicant appears to merely recite that maximization or minimization is performed or achieved, without providing a repeatable process or means by which to achieve a maximum or minimum. Examiner notes that this maximization is recited with respect to “size”, “shape”, and “dimension”. Applicant appears to only recite generalities and illustrate singular instances where the values are already determined and not the means by which they were determined. Therefore, it appears to the Examiner on this reason that either the process is no more than obvious design choice, basic changes in size or proportion, and/or trial and error performed by one of ordinary skill as would be suggested by the absence of detail and not a novel feature, or instead that the technique or method is of insufficient disclosure and this rejection valid.
Furthermore, and alternatively, the true maximum or minimum under such broad and undefined conditions as presented in the claims as well as Applicant’s specification, would be to simply make dimensions infinitely large or infinitely small, or otherwise use highly unusual shapes that do not appear contemplated. For example, in the case of Claim 1, to render a maximum range of motion with respect to any configuration and any axis including the z-axis the blockage would be infinitely small. In the case of Claim 5, the claim not only assumes a structure capable of having what would be considered a chamfer, but it is equally clear that the chamfer would be as severe as possible while still being able to be considered a chamfer. Conversely, under a specific robotic multi-link arm configuration having completely defined real world dimensions (i.e. reproducible in the real world using real components of real dimensions), the “maximum” will understandably be limited to the particular design constraints and technology of the time. In the case of Claim 7, the offset, particularly for the configurations illustrated by Applicant, would appear to be to simply make the offset so large as to eliminate the z-axis housing as interference which is achievable in the real world. Examiner notes that as Applicant does not appear to describe or illustrate this case, Applicant clearly considers a maximum within particular design constraints and technology that are either undisclosed or not disclosed in a manner which provides objective repeatability of a process, for example maintaining or minimizing a small footprint, having the work volume/envelope more symmetrically located around the base of the robotic arm, tip-over concerns, cost, weight, etc.
Furthermore and alternatively, Applicant fails to teach a maximization and minimization method that is applicable to any and all “robotic multi-link arm” configurations (all degrees of freedom and all joint types, etc.). In other words, even if the disclosure was considered sufficient for the described and illustrated example multi-link arms and the first reason for this rejection withdrawn, the Examiner does not consider these few species as a “representative number” sufficient to describe how a method performed for the entire genus of robotic multi-link arms (every possible configuration) rather than the singular species presented (MPEP 2163 relates).
Finally, alternatively, as well as relatedly, the act of “maximizing” appears to be relative and subjective. See the 112(b) rejection below.
Regarding Claims 2 – 4, 6, 8 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 18 – 20, 26, and 28, the claims depend from Claim 1, 11, or 25 and inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1, 11, or 25 as described above. Therefore, Claims 2 – 4, 6, 8 – 10, 12 – 14, 16, 18 – 20, 26, and 28 are rejected under the same logic as Claims 1, 11, or 25 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 – 28 are 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 25, the claims recite the limitation of “the end effector is delimited by a blockage of a substantially vertical axis of motion” or “the end effector is delimited by a blockage of the substantially vertical axis of motion” respectively. It is not clear, especially in light of the claim construction used in Claim 25, if the claim means that there is a blockage of a/the substantially vertical axis of motion, as in the vertical axis of motion is delimited due to a blockage, or if the claim means that the vertical axis of motion is itself further defined as being itself a blockage, which is itself further unclear as an axis of motion is generally considered to be an abstract term by one of ordinary skill in the art and not a physical construct as appears implied by the context of the claims and specification. If this is the correct interpretation, then a structure collocated to a degree appears to have been omitted from the claim.
Furthermore, alternatively, and also relatedly, the following limitation “of the drive section” is separated from the above portion by a comma, such that it is unclear if it is tied to the immediately preceding portion. Furthermore, if it is tied to the immediately preceding portion, then it further emphasizes that the claim appears to be potentially attempting to limit the vertical axis as being abstract and real simultaneously.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in light of later claims as well as the disclosure of the specification, the limitation has been interpreted as meaning there is a blockage collocated to some degree with the vertical axis.
Claims 1, 11, and 25 recite the limitation “that is common”. It is wholly unclear what this limitation means. If it is meant to indicate that “the robotic multi-link arm having the predetermined link configuration” preceding it is common to two or more entities, then Examiner notes said entities are omitted. If it is simply referring to “the robotic multi-link arm having the predetermined link configuration” has associated “the minimum foot print and the corresponding maximum reach” then this terminology is unnecessary and only serves to suggest that a further undefined limitation is potentially being claimed and could be considered as cuasing the overall phrase as lacking proper antecedent basis.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted as omitting the above limitation such that the overall parent limitation instead reads “the predetermined link configuration determining the minimum foot print and the corresponding maximum reach”.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15, 17, 25, and 27 recite the limitation “maximize the range of motion”, “maximize the level range of motion”, “minimize a dimension”, or “the offset is sized to provide maximum range of motion” respectively. The terms “maximize”, “minimize”, and “maximum” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “maximize”, “minimize”, and “maximum” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant provides no means by which one of ordinary skill in the art might determine if a range of motion is maximized or a dimension minimized which is not wholly subjective, nor an objective means by which to produce such a maximum or minimum. For example, in a non-real world having no real-world constraints, maximums would readily be recognized as achieved where the size of the interference or obstruction were simply minimized, and not being the real world, would have no limit on such minimization. Therefore, the obstruction would ideally be infinitely small such that it could be considered to be effectively non-existent. In the real world, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there would be balancing of different factors tied to limitations on how the obstruction could be manufactured/assembled/constructed and a maximum would depend on such factors, and furthermore that even one set of factors might be invalid or weigh different even for a single person between differing robotic multi-link arm configuration (different arm lengths, degrees of freedom, motors used, etc.).
Furthermore, it is unclear to Examiner if the claim should be interpreted as a Product-by-process Claim from this language or just as an apparatus or article with functional language. The recited language does not appear to be functional language as it appears to describe an ambiguous end result from a process of how the apparatus is constructed, but also does not appear to amount to a recitation of a process for making the product of a labware transport apparatus as the detail of such a process is absent. They limitations also appear to potentially be non-positively recited and mere statements of intent or purpose (“so as to” precedes each limitation).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 8, 11 – 14, 18, 21, 23, 25 – 26, and 28, the claims recite the limitation of “substantially vertical axis of motion” and/or “substantially vertical movement”. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, Applicant does not disclose means by which one might objectively ascertain if something is substantially vertical as opposed to just vertical. For example, one person may consider an axis aligned within 3 degrees of gravity to be “substantially” vertical, whereas another person might consider an axis within 4 degrees of gravity to be “substantially” vertical.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations have been interpreted as not having the term “substantially”.
Regarding Claim 1 and 25, the claims recite the limitation of “a blockage … extending through the range of motion” (Examiner notes that Examiner believes this to be the correct noun that is “extending” but could be incorrect due to the high number of compounding commas used in the claim construction). It is unclear what the meaning of this limitation is. First, if the blockage is considered to be literally extending through the range of motion, then it is unclear how it is a blockage as the meaning of blockage, particularly for a physically real blockage, would appear from context and Applicant’s specification to be a location outside of the range of motion. Second, if it is not actually within the range of motion, then it is unclear how it can extend through the range of motion. At most, it would appear that it could abut the range of motion.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation as meaning that the blockage abuts the range of motion.
Regarding Claims 7 – 8, 17 – 18, and 27 – 28, the claims recite the limitation of “about 360°”. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, Applicant does not disclose means by which one might objectively ascertain if something is about 360° as opposed to just 360°. For example, one person may consider about 360° as within 3 degrees of 360°, whereas another person might consider about 360° as within 4 degrees of 360°. Furthermore, with respect to Claims 7, 17, and 27, as illustrated in Applicant’s drawings and described in the specification true 360 degree rotation of the shoulder joint is not taught.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations have been interpreted as not having the term “about”.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “a shape formed by a substantially upright axis of motion of the drive section”. It is unclear how an axis, which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as being abstract and a line, would have a real world shape capable of defining the range of motion, or if considered more abstractly, how something already extending (a line) is further extended, or how that would further define the range of motion.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the limitation as instead reading “a shape formed around a substantially upright axis of motion of the drive section” which as it is extended, would likely refer to a housing or a programmed no entry zone.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the substantially upright axis of motion delimits arm motion traversing the end effector on the transverse axis, or on the extension axis of the range of motion”. It is unclear how an abstract axis of motion which is presumably the z-axis obstructs or delimits motion in the presumably x-y plane, or either axis alone.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim as reading limitation “wherein the shape formed around a substantially upright axis of motion of the drive section delimits arm motion traversing the end effector on the transverse axis, or on the extension axis of the range of motion” in light of Applicant’s specification and the interpretation of a related issue in Claim 11 found above.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “wherein the substantially upright axis of motion comprises a housing”. Examiner notes that an axis, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is abstract. It is therefore unclear how it might comprise a housing which is presumably real. Examiner notes that while Applicant may be their own lexicographer, that this term has not been recognized as being presented by Applicant as having a special definition. Furthermore, unless the meaning of housing is under a special definition, it is unclear how something which presumably only houses components also provides axial motion as would be implied.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted as meaning “wherein the substantially upright axis of motion is encompassed by a housing”.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites the limitation of a “sensor having a field of view extending along the substantially vertical axis of motion”. It is unclear what would be considered as “along” the vertical axis of motion, particularly as the field of view is left undefined. At its most broad, Examiner believes it could be interpreted as simply meaning that the sensor has a field of view which is proximate to some degree to the axis of motion, however what would be proximate enough to be considered “along” is unclear. More narrowly, Examiner believes it could be interpreted as meaning the field of view encompasses the vertical axis. Possibly most narrowly, Examiner also believes that it could be interpreted such that the field of view is parallel to the vertical axis, however as the field of view is undefined (it need not be symmetrical or have what would be considered a central axis) what would constitute as parallel would still be subjective and unclear.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in light of the need of the Examiner to take the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner has taken the first interpretation wherein the sensor need only have an undefined proximity to the vertical axis.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites the limitation of “obstructions located…along the substantially vertical axis of motion”. The claim is rejected under similar logic to the first occurrence of “along” in the claim above. It is unclear what obstructions sensed would be considered as “along”.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites the limitation “the controller being configured to, … slow or stop motion of the robotic multi-link arm along the substantially vertical axis of motion with an obstruction within a substantially vertical movement path of the robotic multi-link arm”. It is highly unclear what is being claimed. The claim appears to read that the controller, in an undisclosed manner, causes an obstruction in a general location along the z-axis movement path of the arm to slow or stop the motion of the arm in the z-axis using undisclosed means. This is due to the construction of “with an obstruction”. It is highly unclear how the controller would facilitate this, as the controller presumably has no control over an obstruction. The claim might also read, with another interpretation of “with” as the obstruction is simply present. However, in this case, the significance of this is unclear and it would appear to be unrelated to the activities of the robot, particularly with the meaning of “obstruction” undefined.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claim as meaning that an undefined/undescribed obstruction is merely present during the stopping or slowing.
Regarding Claims 2 – 3, 6, 9 – 10, 16, 19 – 20, 22, and 24, the claims depend from Claim 1, 11, or 21 and inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1, 11, or 21 as described above. Therefore, Claims 2 – 3, 6, 9 – 10, 16, 19 – 20, 22, and 24 are rejected under the same logic as Claims 1, 11, or 21 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guarracina et al. (US 20190241375 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Guarracina teaches:
A labware transport apparatus comprising:
a frame (See at least dock frame module 150C, or just the base of robot 120, or frame 427 in Figure 1E. Examiner notes that frame has been interpreted as a base or frame per Figures 3A – 5 of Applicant’s specification) defining a labware space (Examiner notes that the term “labware space” in the context of Applicant’s specification and without further definition within the claim appears to merely mean a general area around which the frame (base) exists. See at least [0029] of Applicant’s specification. For the purpose of compact prosecution, however, see also [0047) “Here any suitable robot 120 is configured to transfer the lab ware between the storage carousel 20000ES and any other suitable component of the processing system 100”); and
a robotic multi-link arm, articulated so that the robotic multi-link arm is selectably compliant (See at least [0055] “Dock frame module 150C is also illustrated as having a robot 120 (e.g., having at least three degrees of freedom, such as a selective compliant articulated robot arm with or without Z axis movement) and one or more nests 900 that are accessible by the robot 120” and Figure 1E. Examiner notes that variable compliance may be achieved through physical structure ranging from just a single component such as the end effector to the entire arm, software/firmware/settings, or a combination of both. Furthermore, the type of compliance is not claimed. Examiner notes that if a particular robotic arm structure and/or compliance type is desired to be claimed, as possibly suggested by [0024] of Applicant’s specification (SCARA arm), that more exact and definite language be used), the robotic multi-link arm is operably connected to the frame, via a drive section (See at least drive section 426 and Figure 1E), disposed to extend and retract the robotic multi-link arm so as to (Examiner notes that this might be interpreted as providing a mere indication of intent or purpose and not a positively recited limitation) extend and retract an end effector of the robotic multi-link arm in the labware space along an extension axis, and displace the end effector side to side along a transverse axis angled relative to the extension axis, the extension axis and transverse axis angled thereto define a range of motion of the end effector of the robotic multi-link arm (These features are inherent given the configuration of [0055] recited above and illustrated in Figure 1E. See also at least [0096] “In one aspect, the robotic transport arm 120 may be a two link arm (as illustrated in, e.g., FIG. 1E) where the end effector 423 is constrained to move in the radial direction (e.g., where the robotic transport arm 120 includes a 3-axis drive system)”. Examiner notes that while named “extension” and “transverse” axis, and later “vertical” axis, as presently claimed and as disclosed in Applicant’s specification these appear to have no distinction from traditionally labeled x, y, and z-axes.);
wherein the robotic multi-link arm has a predetermined link configuration (See at least [0096] or Figure 1E. Examiner notes in light of Applicant’s specification, “predetermined link configuration” appears to refer to the physical construction of the arm such as link lengths or degrees of freedom or joint types rather than to a particular pose or posture of an arm. See at least [0030] of Applicant’s specification. Therefore, for any real robotic arm this feature is inherent. It is likewise inherent for many simulated or otherwise non-real robotic arms. Examiner further notes that if it were the latter meaning (pose, posture), that a 112(b) and possibly 112(a) rejection would be appropriate as it would be unclear how a singular pose could achieve both a minimum footprint and maximum reach, or how one might make such a determination objectively) determining a minimum footprint of the robotic multi-link arm and a corresponding maximum reach of the end effector within the range of motion (Examiner notes that this limitation appears inherent to the limitations preceding above of a “robotic multi-link arm” which is “selectably compliant” having an end effector which can be displaced in a “transverse” and “extension” axis. All robotic arms will inherently have at least one pose corresponding to a minimum possible footprint and at least one pose corresponding to a maximum reach/range in one or more (or even all) directions which is dependent on their geometry/configuration. Examiner further notes that “determining” has been interpreted as meaning “defining”); and
wherein the range of motion, at least in part of the labware space, of the end effector is delimited by a blockage of a substantially vertical axis of motion, of the drive section, extending through the range of motion (See at least frame 427 which has Z axis track 425 which are of limited height and which delimit the Z axis range both up and down of the end effector 423 in Figure 1E. See also that due to the configuration rotation about the axis BX is limited due to obstruction/interference of frame 427 and end effector 423 is therefore delimited in the X-Y motion plane), wherein the blockage is sized and shaped based on and so as to (Examiner notes that this might be interpreted as providing a mere indication of intent or purpose and not a positively recited limitation) maximize the range of motion of the end effector of the robotic multi-link arm having the predetermined link configuration that is common determining the minimum foot print and the corresponding maximum reach (Examiner notes that in light of the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above the nature of this limitation is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, see frame 427 which has contoured or chamfered corners which appear to leave a minimum edge beyond Z axis track and carriage 424 such that interference is reduced and potentially minimized between arm link 422A and frame 427, and consequently increases and potentially maximizes the range of motion to the rear depending on interpretation (again see 112 rejections above). Furthermore, Examiner notes that this appears to be a mere matter of design choice without a particular method or means of establishing the maximization being recited. It is natural for a designer to attempt to maximize functionality and reduce size).
Regarding Claim 2, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the blockage delimits arm motion traversing the end effector on the transverse axis, or on the extension axis of the range of motion (See at least Figure 1E. Due to the configuration, rotation about the axis BX is limited due to obstruction/interference of frame 427 with arm link 422A. Therefore motion of the arm link 422A, end effector 423, and the arm in general is delimited in the X-Y motion plane).
Regarding Claim 3, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the blockage interferes with at least one of extension and transverse motion of at least one link of the multi-link arm (See at least Figure 1E. Due to the configuration, rotation about the axis BX is limited due to obstruction/interference of frame 427 with arm link 422A. Therefore motion of the arm link 422A, end effector 423, and the arm in general is delimited in the X-Y motion plane).
Regarding Claim 4, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 1, wherein the blockage is formed by a housing (See frame 427) of the substantially vertical axis of motion, and the housing forms an interference to arm motion within the range of motion (See at least frame 427 which has Z axis track 425 which are of limited height and which delimit the Z axis range both up and down of the end effector 423 in Figure 1E. See also that due to the configuration rotation about the axis BX is limited due to obstruction/interference of frame 427 and end effector 423 is therefore delimited in the X-Y motion plane).
Regarding Claim 5, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 4, wherein the housing has as a side chamfer sized so as to (Examiner notes that this might be interpreted as providing a mere indication of intent or purpose and not a positively recited limitation) minimize a dimension of the housing within the range of motion and correspondingly increase, with the side chamfer, freedom of movement of the robotic multi-link arm in the range of motion and maximize the range of motion.
Regarding Claim 6, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 4, wherein the housing is a column rising through the range of motion (See frame 427).
Regarding Claim 7, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 4, wherein the robotic multi-link arm has a shoulder axis that is fixed and offset from the housing (See at least axis BX in Figure 1E), and the offset is sized to provide maximum range of motion effecting end effector access to labware space throughout about 360° around the shoulder axis (Examiner notes that in light of the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above the nature of this limitation is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, see Figure 1E wherein axis BX is provided with an offset which appears to keep the minimum footprint of the arm as a whole to within the footprint of the unit as a whole).
Regarding Claim 8, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 7, wherein the substantially vertical axis of motion is fixed in a predetermined orientation (See Figure 1E) and 360° access is effected singularly via link articulation of the robotic multi-link arm in the range of motion (See at least axis CX or DX of Figure 1E. Examiner notes that the nature of the access and the axis about which to determine 360 degrees are not claimed. Also due to claim construction the “access” should be construed as referring to something other than the access of Claim 7 (no “the”, etc. referring back. Finally, the “singularly” limitation has been interpreted as meaning that access is not considered from mobility of an overall platform or device to which the arm may mounted).
Regarding Claim 9, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 1, further comprising at least one sensor disposed on at least one arm link of the multi-link arm so that the sensor senses one or more of a labware pose, labware holding location pose, and obstructions located underneath or above the multi-link arm (See at least [0103] “For example, referring to FIG. 27, a bar code scanner 1210 may be mounted to any suitable location of the base portion 600 so as to identify lab ware being picked or otherwise held by the end effector 423. A through beam sensor 1220 may also be disposed on the end effector 423 for detecting a presence of lab ware stored in the storage carousel 20000ES (or at any other suitable location of the processing systems described herein)” and [0104] “The through beam sensor 1220 may be configured to determine if lab ware is present in each nest 900 of a random access storage rack modules 850M, 851M. The through beam sensor 1220 may also be configured to determine how may pieces of lab ware (such as sample holders 518) are stacked in a non-random storage rack modules 852M. For example, the through beam sensor 1220 may be configured with a fast capture input/output that latches the encoder position on the Z-axis motor. The transition points between the individual pieces of lab ware are then filtered and compared to empty storage rack modules 850M, 851M, 852M measurements to determine differences. In one aspect, the through beam sensor 1220 may also be latched to arm motor positions (e.g., θ, R, β drive motors) and can be used for auto-teaching lab ware holding locations to the different drive axes of the robotic transport arm 120 (such as by determining a location of nest features or special fiducials) to a controller of the robotic transport arm 120”. Examiner notes that “arm link” is undefined, and while the recited portions above recite other locations, the end effector 423 and frame 427 having Z axis track 425 would be included).
Regarding Claim 10, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 9, wherein the at least one sensor is a ranging sensor (See [0103] and [0104] above which recite contactless sensors such as beam sensor 1220 or scanner/presence detector unit (also reader) 1702).
Regarding Claim 11, Guarracina teaches:
A labware transport apparatus comprising:
a frame (See at least dock frame module 150C, or just the base of robot 120, or frame 427 in Figure 1E. Examiner notes that frame has been interpreted as a base or frame per Figures 3A – 5 of Applicant’s specification) defining a labware space (Examiner notes that the term “labware space” in the context of Applicant’s specification and without further definition within the claim appears to merely mean a general area around which the frame (base) exists. See at least [0029] of Applicant’s specification. For the purpose of compact prosecution, however, see also [0047) “Here any suitable robot 120 is configured to transfer the lab ware between the storage carousel 20000ES and any other suitable component of the processing system 100”); and
a robotic multi-link arm, articulated so that the robotic multi-link arm is selectably compliant (See at least [0055] “Dock frame module 150C is also illustrated as having a robot 120 (e.g., having at least three degrees of freedom, such as a selective compliant articulated robot arm with or without Z axis movement) and one or more nests 900 that are accessible by the robot 120” and Figure 1E. Examiner notes that variable compliance may be achieved through physical structure ranging from just a single component such as the end effector to the entire arm, software/firmware/settings, or a combination of both. Furthermore, the type of compliance is not claimed. Examiner notes that if a particular robotic arm structure and/or compliance type is desired to be claimed, as possibly suggested by [0024] of Applicant’s specification (SCARA arm), that more exact and definite language be used), the robotic multi-link arm is operably connected to the frame, via a drive section (See at least drive section 426 and Figure 1E), disposed to extend and retract the robotic multi-link arm so as to (Examiner notes that this might be interpreted as providing a mere indication of intent or purpose and not a positively recited limitation) extend and retract an end effector of the robotic multi-link arm in the labware space along an extension axis, and displace the end effector side to side along a transverse axis angled relative to the extension axis, the extension axis and transverse axis angled thereto define a level range of motion of the end effector of the robotic multi-link arm (These features are inherent given the configuration of [0055] recited above and illustrated in Figure 1E. See also at least [0096] “In one aspect, the robotic transport arm 120 may be a two link arm (as illustrated in, e.g., FIG. 1E) where the end effector 423 is constrained to move in the radial direction (e.g., where the robotic transport arm 120 includes a 3-axis drive system)”. Examiner notes that while named “extension” and “transverse” axis, and later “vertical” axis, as presently claimed and as disclosed in Applicant’s specification these appear to have no distinction from traditionally labeled x, y, and z-axes);
wherein the robotic multi-link arm has a predetermined link configuration determining a minimum footprint of the robotic multi-link arm and a corresponding maximum reach of the end effector within the level range of motion (Examiner notes that this limitation appears inherent to the limitations preceding above of a “robotic multi-link arm” which is “selectably compliant” having an end effector which can be displaced in a “transverse” and “extension” axis. All robotic arms will inherently have at least one pose corresponding to a minimum possible footprint and at least one pose corresponding to a maximum reach/range in one or more (or even all) directions which is dependent on their geometry/configuration. Examiner further notes that “determining” has been interpreted as meaning “defining”); and
wherein the level range of motion, at least in part of the labware space, of the end effector is determined by extension of a shape formed by a substantially upright axis of motion of the drive section, through the level range of motion (See at least frame 427 which has Z axis track 425 which are of limited height and which delimit the Z axis range both up and down of the end effector 423 in Figure 1E. See also that due to the configuration rotation about the axis BX is limited due to obstruction/interference of frame 427 and end effector 423 is therefore delimited in the X-Y motion plane), and the shape has a configuration based on and disposed so as to (Examiner notes that this might be interpreted as providing a mere indication of intent or purpose and not a positively recited limitation) maximize the level range of motion of the end effector of the robotic multi-link arm having the predetermined link configuration that is common determining the minimum foot print and the corresponding maximum reach (Examiner notes that in light of the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above the nature of this limitation is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, see frame 427 which has contoured or chamfered corners which appear to leave a minimum edge beyond Z axis track and carriage 424 such that interference is reduced and potentially minimized between arm link 422A and frame 427, and consequently increases and potentially maximizes the range of motion to the rear depending on interpretation (again see 112 rejections above). Furthermore, Examiner notes that this appears to be a mere matter of design choice without a particular method or means of establishing the maximization being recited. It is natural for a designer to attempt to maximize functionality and reduce size).
Regarding Claim 12, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 11, wherein the substantially upright axis of motion delimits arm motion traversing the end effector on the transverse axis, or on the extension axis of the range of motion (See at least Figure 1E. Due to the configuration, rotation about the axis BX is limited due to obstruction/interference of frame 427 with arm link 422A. Therefore motion of the arm link 422A, end effector 423, and the arm in general is delimited in the X-Y motion plane).
Regarding Claim 13, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 11, wherein the substantially upright axis of motion interferes with at least one of extension and transverse motion of at least one link of the multi-link arm (See at least Figure 1E. Due to the configuration, rotation about the axis BX is limited due to obstruction/interference of frame 427 with arm link 422A. Therefore motion of the arm link 422A, end effector 423, and the arm in general is delimited in the X-Y motion plane).
Regarding Claim 14, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 11, wherein the substantially upright axis of motion comprises a housing (See frame 427), and the housing forms an interference to arm motion within the level range of motion (See at least frame 427 which has Z axis track 425 which are of limited height and which delimit the Z axis range both up and down of the end effector 423 in Figure 1E. See also that due to the configuration rotation about the axis BX is limited due to obstruction/interference of frame 427 and end effector 423 is therefore delimited in the X-Y motion plane).
Regarding Claim 15, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 14, wherein the housing has as a side chamfer sized so as to (Examiner notes that this might be interpreted as providing a mere indication of intent or purpose and not a positively recited limitation) minimize a dimension of the housing within the level range of motion and correspondingly increase, with the side chamfer, freedom of movement of the robotic multi-link arm in the level range of motion and maximize the level range of motion (Examiner notes that in light of the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above the nature of this limitation is unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, see frame 427 which has contoured or chamfered corners which appear to leave a minimum edge beyond Z axis track and carriage 424 such that interference is reduced and potentially minimized between arm link 422A and frame 427, and consequently increases and potentially maximizes the range of motion to the rear depending on interpretation (again see 112 rejections above). Furthermore, Examiner notes that this appears to be a mere matter of design choice without a particular method or means of establishing the maximization being recited. It is natural for a designer to attempt to maximize functionality and reduce size).
Regarding Claim 16, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 14, wherein the housing is a column rising through the level range of motion (See frame 427).
Regarding Claim 17, Guarracina teaches:
The labware transport apparatus of claim 14, wherein the robotic multi-link arm has a shoulder axis that is fixed and offset from the housing (See at least axis BX in Figure 1E), and the offset is sized to provide maximum