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
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbecke (WO 2019/238883 A1) in view of Reinhold et al. (DE 102017220064).
Regarding claim 1, Robbecke discloses a screwing device (10; Fig. 1) comprising a connection portion (6) configured to be detachably attached to a robot arm (16), a housing (18), a screw holding portion (5) fixed to the housing (18), wherein the screw holding portion (5) is configured to hold a screw (1; Fig. 2) in such a manner that the screw (1) can be brought into contact with a screw hole (9) of an object (2) arranged in a predefined position. Robbecke discloses an alert unit (15; pg. 6, 3rd paragraph) configured to allow the screw holding portion (5) to be moved away from a structure (2) when a force by which the structure (i.e., corresponding touch of an operator; not shown) presses against the screw holding portion (5) or the screw (1) held by the screw holding portion (5) exceeds a predefined level, the alert unit (15) is configured to interrupt the motion of the screwing device (10).
Regarding claim 9, Robbecke discloses a method for using a screwing device (10; Fig. 1), wherein the screwing device (10) comprises a connection portion (6) configured to be detachably attached to a robot arm (16) to conduct a safe screwing operation, a housing (18), a screw holding portion (5) fixed to the housing (18), wherein the screw holding portion (5) is configured to hold a screw (2) in such a manner that the screw (2) can be brought into contact with a screw hole (9) of an object (2) arranged in a predefined position.
Robbecke, however, does not disclose the following: a motor arranged to rotate the screw holding portion with respect to a longitudinal axis of movement of the screw holding portion; wherein the alert unit is configured to bring the screwing device into failure mode, in which the motor is turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level; allowing the screw holding portion to be moved away from a structure when a force by which the structure presses against the screw holding portion or the screw held by the screw holding portion exceeds predefined level; or bringing the screwing device into a failure mode, in which the motor is turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level.
Reinhold discloses a motor (i.e., drive motor; pg. 5, lines 31-33) arranged to rotate the screw holding portion (6) with respect to a longitudinal axis of movement of the screw holding portion (6). Reinhold discloses wherein an alert unit (32) is configured to bring the screwing device (10) into failure mode (pg. 7, line 35- pg. 8, line 4), in which the motor is turned off (pg. 8, lines 3-4) when the force (pg. 2, [0006]; pg. 4, [0012], lines 1-8; pg. 7, line 35- pg. 8, line 4) exceeds the predefined level. Reinhold discloses a control unit (30) connected to the sensor unit/alert unit (32) and the screw drive (12) which includes a drive motor and the screw holding portion (6). If the alert unit (32) senses any irregularities in the set parameters concerning force and distance regarding the screw drive (12), then the control unit (30) immediately interrupts/stops movement of the screw along the feed path which in this case in this longitudinal direction. Therefore, since the movement of the screw drive (12) is stopped one can readily assume the drive motor is turned off as well. Reinhold discloses allowing the screw holding portion (6) to be moved away (pg. 4, [0012], lines 1-8) from a structure (not shown) when a force (pg. 2, [0006]; pg. 4, [0012], lines 1-8; pg. 7, line 35 - pg. 8, line 4) by which the structure presses against the screw holding portion (6) exceeds predefined level, and bringing the screwing device (10) into a failure mode (pg. 7, line 35- pg. 8, line 4), in which the motor is inherently turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date to provide the automatic screwing device of Robbecke with a motor arranged to rotate the screw holding portion with respect to a longitudinal axis of movement of the screw holding portion, to configure the alert unit of Robbecke to bring the screwing device into failure mode, in which the motor is turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level, to allow the screw holding portion of Robbecke to be moved away from a structure when a force by which the structure presses against the screw holding portion exceeds predefined level, and to bring the screwing device of Robbecke into a failure mode, in which the motor is turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level, in light of the teachings of Reinhold, in order to improve the safety conditions of the worker collaborating or working with the screwing-in device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Reinhold does not disclose turning off a motor when a force exceeds a predefined level.
Applicants further argue “Reinhold does not disclose turning off a motor when a force exceeds a predefined level. Rather, Reinhold's sensor unit 32 detects spring travel (Federweg F) and feed-path position (Zustellweg Z) using a proximity switch and/or a light barrier, as described in paragraph [0008] of Reinhold. Specifically, Reinhold states that the sensor unit comprises "einen Naherungsschalter und/oder eine Lichtschranke" (a proximity switch and/or a light barrier) for detecting the feed path Z of the screw drive. The sensor element 38 detects the spring travel F, which is a displacement measurement, not a force measurement. Reinhold's system monitors whether the spring has been compressed (i.e., displacement) and whether the screw drive has reached a predefined position along the feed path Z both of which are displacement-based parameters, not force-based parameters as required by claims 1 and 9.”
“Moreover, Reinhold's abort condition is conjunctive and wholly positional. As set forth in paragraph [0004] of Reinhold, the control device aborts the feed movement along the feed path Z when the sensor unit detects a value of the spring travel F that deviates from an initial value and simultaneously the sensor unit detects a value that deviates from the predefined position of the feed path Z. In other words, any deviation in spring travel F triggers the abort, regardless of magnitude, provided the screw drive has not yet reached the predefined position along the feed path Z. There is no threshold of magnitude anywhere in Reinhold-no comparison of a measured quantity against a "predefined level" as recited in claims 1 and 9. Reinhold's system is a binary positional check, not a force-threshold mechanism. The Examiner has alleged that "since the movement of the screw drive (12) is stopped one can readily assume the drive motor is turned off as well" and that "the motor is inherently turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level." Applicant respectfully submits that this reasoning is improper under MPEP § 2112(IV), which states that "the fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic." See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993).”
In response, the examiner states Reinhold discloses the screw drive (12) of the screwing device (10) being provided with a drive motor (not shown; see pg. 5, lines 31-32 of machine translation). Reinhold discloses the screwing device (10) including an alert unit (i.e., sensor unit 32) which is integrated with a control device (30; pg. 6, lines 1-7 of the machine translation). The alert unit (i.e., sensor unit 32) of Reinhold further includes a sensor element (38; pg. 6, lines 18-20 of the machine translation) which is provided in the telescopic area of the screw drive (12) and detects the spring travel F of the screw drive (12). Spring travel and spring deflection are well known interchangeable terms to one of ordinary skill in the art. The formula for spring deflection is x = F/k where x = deflection, F = applied force, and k = spring rate.
The machine translation states at pg. 2, line 3 – pg. 3, line 2, “Sensory monitoring ensures the limit values for contact force and peak pressure between the screwing device and the operator are adhered to during screwing processes to be carried out under quasi-static contact, whereby limit values for contact force and peak pressure to be adhered to can be specified, for example, by ISO TS 15066.” Therefore, it is reasonable to assume the contact force values are taken into account by the control device (10), and since spring travel/deflection is detected by sensor element (38) it is also reasonable to assume applied force can be determined/calculated if required.
The machine translation at page 7, line 35 – page 8, line 5, states “….if the sensor unit 32 detects a spring travel F of the screw drive 12 without the specified position of the feed path Z having been detected beforehand at least simultaneously, it can that an object located between screw tool 6 and screw element 2 blocks the feed path Z or prevents a further feed movement of the screw drive 12. The control device 30 then immediately interrupts a feed movement of the screw drive 12 along the feed path Z.” Since the control device 30 interrupts feed movement of the screw drive 12 due to an object blocking the feed path of the screw device it is readily apparent the control drive (30) stopped or cut off the drive motor to prevent movement of the screw drive (12) along the feed path. The control device (30) is inherently capable of moving the screw holding portion/tool (6) of the screwing device (10) away from a structure (i.e., object) when a force by which the structure (i.e., object) presses against the screw holding portion/tool (6) of the screwing device (10) exceeds a predefined level (i.e., spring travel/deflection) sensed by the alert/sensor (32), and based on the data sensed by the alert/sensor unit (32) the screw drive (12) is interrupted and the screwing device (10) is brought into a failure mode in which the drive motor operation can be stopped or cut off by the control device (30) due to the alert/sensor unit (32) detected values.
Note also in response to applicant's argument with respect to claim 1 that Reinhold does not disclose an alert unit configured to allow the screw holding portion to be moved away from a structure when a force by which the structure presses against the screw holding portion or the screw held by the screw holding portion exceeds a predefined level, wherein the alert unit is configured to bring the screwing device into a failure mode, in which the motor is turned off when the force exceeds the predefined level, 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 response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Robbecke and Reinhold are concerned stopping operation of a screwing device when movement of the screwing device makes contact with an object that blocks its movement in the feed path/travel direction of the screwing device. Robbecke is silent with respect to the means for moving its screwing device along the feed path, and the relation between its moving means and operation of its screwing device. Reinhold discloses a screwing device (10) with a screw drive (12) having an electrically or pneumatically operated drive motor, and an alert/sensor unit (32) which includes a sensor element (38) arranged in the screw drive (12) and detects spring travel/deflection. The screw device (10) is controlled by a control device (30) which can interrupt feed movement of the screw drive (12) when alerted by the sensor unit (32) that spring travel/deflection detected value encounters an object blocking the feed path. This interruption of feed movement prevents injury to the object if it is the limb of an operator or damage to another object if it is component/part used in the assembly process. The alert/sensor unit and control device of Reinhold provide a safe and effective means for preventing injury to an operator or damage to a part by providing a controlled and regulated manner for pausing the operation of the screw drive motor and bringing the screwing device into a failure/safety mode. Therefore, based on the teachings of Reinhold one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the benefits of incorporating the drive motor and alert unit of Reinhold into the screwing device of Robbecke to provide a screwing device with improved safety features to prevent damage to the screwing device and protect the operator’s limb from injury.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference listed on the attached PTO-892 is cited to show a screwing device.
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 JERMIE E COZART whose telephone number is (571)272-4528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 7:00pm.
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.
/JERMIE E COZART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
October 14, 2026
