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 § 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 3 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.
Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and MPEP 2173, claims are considered indefinite if they are ambiguous or unclear, such as using phrases like "can be" which fail to clearly define the boundary of the invention. The phrase "can be" introduces optionality or alternative, non-limiting embodiments rather than a precise requirement, thus triggering §112(b) rejections.
Claim 3 recites the limitations in lines 2-4: “the first regulation portion and the second regulation portion can be selected from the at least three openings according to a diameter of the wire rod”. Due to the usage of language of “can be”, It is unclear and ambiguous as to whether the first regulation portion and the second regulation portion is or is not selected from the at least three openings according to a diameter of the wire rod. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toshihiko Inoue (US 11529732B2, hereinafter referred to as “Toshihinko Inoue”).
Regarding claim 1, Toshihiko Inoue discloses a holding mechanism configured to hold a wire rod (Fig 1, fixing members 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 for holding a cable 150; Fig 6, cable 150) by fastening with a band (Fig 4, cable 150 fastened by binding bands 12), comprising: a holding member (Figs 4, 6 and 10, member 2) including a contact portion configured to come into contact with the wire rod (Figs 4, 6 and 10, fixing portion 21 come into contact wire with cable 150), a first regulation portion configured to regulate a position of a first portion of the band (Figs 4, 6 and 10 show at least three regulation portions with bands 12 and slits combined to regulate the position of fastened/held parts of cable 150), and a second regulation portion configured to regulate a position of a second portion of the band ((Figs 4, 6 and 10 show at least three regulation portions with bands 12 and slits combined to regulate the position of fastened/held parts of cable 150)), wherein a distance between the first regulation portion and the second regulation portion is smaller than a diameter of the wire rod (Fig 4, distance between two bands 12 adjacent to label for 6 appear to be narrower than diameter of cable 150; Fig 6, distance between two bands 12 adjacent to label for 21 appear to be narrower than diameter of cable 150) and wherein slits are provided along a radial direction of the wire rod parallel to a surface of the holding member in a case when the holding member is viewed in a plan view (Fig 5, at least 6 slits along radial direction of cable 150 is shown on 21 of member 2).
Regarding claim 2, Toshihiko Inoue discloses wherein the first regulation portion and the second regulation portion are openings included in the holding member
(Figs 12 and 13, two round holes/openings are disposed at first and second regulation portions adjacent and in between slits in the holding member (6)).
Regarding claim 3, Toshihiko Inoue discloses wherein the holding member comprises at least three openings (Figs 12 and 13, member 6 has three holes/openings on 61), and the first regulation portion and the second regulation portion can be selected from the at least three openings according to a diameter of the wire rod ( referring to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above, limitation reciting “can be” fail to clearly define the boundary of the invention. The phrase "can be" introduces optionality or alternative, non-limiting embodiments rather than a precise requirement, thus deemed limitation to be optional and can be omitted for consideration).
Regarding claim 7, Toshihiko Inoue discloses wherein the band is configured to be fastened on an opposite side of the wire rod with respect to the holding member (Fig 4, band 12 is fastened on opposite side of cable 150 at slits of holding member (2)).
Regarding claim 8, Toshihiko Inoue discloses wherein the band includes a ratchet type fastening portion (Figs 4, 6, 10, binding bands 12 appear to have ratchet type fastening portion at outside edge of fixing portion 21).
Regarding claim 9, Toshihiko Inoue discloses wherein the wire rod is a flexible transmission member for transmitting a control signal and/or drive energy to an actuator of a robot device (col 3, lines 37-40: robot 100 is provided with cable 150 for transmitting motive power and control signals to motors).
Regarding claim 10, Toshihiko Inoue discloses wherein the band is configured to be annularly wound around the wire rod (Figs 1 and 11 and 17, band 12 appears to be annularly wound the cable 150 at fixing members 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
Regarding claim 11, Toshihiko Inoue discloses a robot device (Figs 1-2, 11 and 17, robot 100) comprising the holding mechanism according to claim 1 (see remarks for claim 1 above), wherein the holding member is configured to be detachably fixed to a robot arm (Fig 12, detachably fixed by bolt fastener).
Regarding claim 12, Toshihiko Inoue discloses a robot device (Figs 1-2, 11 and 17, robot 100) comprising the holding mechanism according to claim 1 (see remarks for claim 1 above), wherein the holding member is configured to be integrated with a structural component of a robot arm (Fig 17, fixing members 6, 7, 8 integrated with first arm 130 of robot 100).
Regarding claim 13, Toshihiko Inoue discloses wherein the robot arm includes a plurality of joints (col 3, lines 4-7: first arm 130 rotatable about axis B with respect to revolving drum 120, col 3, lines 10-25: various parts rotatable at respective joints), a plurality of links (Figs 1 and 11,first arm 130, second arm 141, wrist unit 142), and a plurality of holding members including the holding member (Figs 1, 11 and 17, fixing members 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ), wherein the wire rod (150) is held at a plurality of portions of the robot arm using the plurality of holding members (Figs 1, 11 and 17), and wherein the wire rod has different thicknesses at at least two of the plurality of portions (Fig 17, cable 150 appear to be different diameters at 140 versus at 120, respectively).
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 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) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Toshihiko Inoue (US 11529732B2, hereinafter referred to as “Toshihinko Inoue”) in view of Hiraide (US 20210299871A1, hereinafter referred to as “Hiraide”).
Regarding claim 14, Toshihinko Inoue fails to disclose wherein the robot arm includes a torque sensor, and the wire rod comprises a signal line for the torque sensor to communicate with a control portion.
However, Hiraide teaches wherein the robot arm (Fig 1, robot 1 with robot arm 10 ) includes a torque sensor ([0042] force detection unit 19 in the robot 1 can be a torque sensor), and the wire rod comprises a signal line for the torque sensor to communicate with a control portion ([0050] control unit 31, signal generated in control unit 31 is transmitted to various parts of the robot 1 via the communication unit 33, via wired LAN, [0045] force detection unit 19 (torque sensor) electrically coupled to failure prediction apparatus 5 via control apparatus 3, Fig 1 wired coupling of robot 1 and control apparatus 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Toshihinko Inoue and Hiraide based on the following rationale: referring to entire content of Toshihinko Inoue, which describes mainly of robotic cable management system using various embodiments of fixing members for fixing cables onto various parts of the robot. However, there is inadequate content taught by Toshihinko Inoue regarding the overall operation process and configuration and setup of a turnkey robot arm system. Meanwhile, referring to entire teachings from Hiraide describing of a robot 10 having a robot arm 10 comprising arms 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, and joints 171, 172, 173, 174, 175. In addition, Hiraide also discloses motors M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, and M6, and various corresponding encoders E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, and E6, and inertial sensor 18, force detection unit 19, memory unit 32, control apparatus 3, and control unit 31, and communication unit 33, as well as end effector 20 so as to enable a fully complete turnkey robot arm system. In addition, Hiraide is also equipped with failure prediction apparatus 5, failure prediction model 50 and data analysis and machine learning and prediction capability so as to perform accurate failure prediction of the robot system without requiring physically to disassemble the robot arm system to check for possibly failed components. As a result, above discussed advantages as taught by Hiraide over Toshihinko Inoue serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Toshihinko Inoue and Hiraide, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both references belong as analogous art in the field of robot arm system.
Regarding claim 15, Toshihinko Inoue fails to sufficiently disclose a method for controlling the robot device according to claim 11, wherein a control portion is configured to transmit a control signal for controlling operation of the robot arm to a driving portion of the robot arm via the wire rod.
However, Hiraide and Toshihinko Inoue combined teach a method for controlling the robot device (Hiraide: Fig 1, a method for controlling a robot 1 having robot arms 10 using a control apparatus 3 and a teaching apparatus 4) according to claim 11 (Toshihinko Inoue, see remarks above for claim 11) wherein a control portion is configured to transmit a control signal for controlling operation of the robot arm to a driving portion of the robot arm via the wire rod (Hiraide: [0037] control apparatus 3 has signals to control operation of the motors M1 to M6 for the robot arm motor driver for the robot arm 10, Fig 1, wired coupling of control apparatus 3 to robot 1, [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Toshihinko Inoue fails to disclose wherein the robot arm includes a torque sensor, and the wire rod includes a signal line for the torque sensor to communicate with the control portion.
However, Hiraide teaches wherein the robot arm (Fig 1, robot 1 with robot arm 10 ) includes a torque sensor ([0042] force detection unit 19 in the robot 1 can be a torque sensor), and the wire rod includes a signal line for the torque sensor to communicate with the control portion ([0050] control unit 31, signal generated in control unit 31 is transmitted to various parts of the robot 1 via the communication unit 33, via wired LAN, [0045] force detection unit 19 (torque sensor) electrically coupled to failure prediction apparatus 5 via control apparatus 3, Fig 1 wired coupling of robot 1 and control apparatus 3).
Regarding claim 17, Toshihinko Inoue fails to sufficiently disclose a method for manufacturing an article comprising: operating the robot device according to claim 11; and assembling a component by the robot arm.
However, Hiraide and Toshihinko Inoue combined teach a method for manufacturing an article comprising: operating the robot device according to claim 11 (Toshihinko Inoue see remarks for claim 11 above); and assembling a component by the robot arm (Hiraide: [0046] lines 2-5: end effector 20 includes a hand with claw portions to grip a workpiece (component)).
Regarding claim 18, Toshihinko Inoue fails to disclose a computer-readable recording medium configured to record a program for causing a computer to perform the method for controlling the robot device according to claim 15.
However, Hiraide teaches a computer-readable recording medium configured to record a program for causing a computer to perform the method for controlling the robot device ([0050] computer program, memory unit 32 stores various programs that can be executed by the control unit 31. Memory unit 32 can be RAM, ROM or detachable external memory device. [0051] and Fig 1, teaching apparatus 4, a laptop or personal computer) according to claim 15 (see remarks for claim 15 above).
Regarding claims 15-18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Toshihinko Inoue and Hiraide based on same rationales previously discussed for claim 14 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
None of cited prior art, Toshihinko Inoue and Hiraide, singularly or in any combination thereof, disclose or teach “wherein slits are provided along directions inclined with respect to a radial direction of the wire rod parallel to a surface of the holding member in a case when the holding member is viewed in a plan view” of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ohtsubo (US 20190061145A1) discloses a robot system with a robot arm with cable brackets. Inoue (US 20200298427A1) disclose a wire-body processing structure for robot. Fujioka (US 20230088797A1) disclose a robot cable-assembly management structure. Adachi (US 20190291286A1) discloses cable clamp and robot. Grella (US 12128552B2) discloses a collaborative robot line management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 am MT-- 5:00 pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632