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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/ 2025 has been entered.
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration after Final Rejection filed 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 is amended and Claims 8 and 9 are added.
Applicant' s Arguments and Amendments, filed 12/16/2025, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification and Claims. Applicant' s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1, 2-6 rejected over the non-final office action have been considered, but are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendment to Claim 1 filed on 12/16/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, and 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claims 2, 3, and 6 – the coupling/the coupling mechanism.
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 4 is/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.
Claim 4 recites “the coupling is closed again”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests applicants intended to recite “the coupling (mechanism) is in the connected position”.
All dependent claims not cited but dependent on the independent and dependent claims above are also hereby rejected.
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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB 20180201537A1 by Valli et. al (herein “Valli”), in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,954,446 by Ireland (herein “Ireland”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20200368920A1 by Thunell et. al. (herein “Thunell”).
Regarding Claim 1, Valli teaches:
An IS machine for producing glass containers; [0017], [0018]
Comprising,
a plurality of stations which each comprise a blank mold and a finishing mold; [0002]
and comprising a lubricating tool for lubricating at least some of the blank molds with a
lubricant and a spray head for spraying the lubricant ; Fig. 2 [0020],[0021],[0022] “said method
comprising a lubrication of said parison mould, the lubrication comprising a spraying via a
nozzle, said nozzle being carried by the arm of a mobile robot moving along the parison mould
side of the I.S. machine”, “.. bringing the nozzle into a lubrication position after the glass gob has
departed from the parison mould towards the blow mould”, “spraying the lubricant into said
parison mould”. Fig. 2 illustrates the arm (nozzles not shown) that is part of the lubricating tool.
a robot for manipulating the lubricating tool;[0030], [0031], [0072], “during the lubrication
step, the first nozzle is oriented towards one of the two half-moulds, before the second nozzle
is oriented towards the other of the half-moulds by moving the arm of the robot”, “the
lubrication of the parison moulds being carried out at regular time intervals, or on the request
of the operator, the mobile robot moving the nozzle successively to the level of the different
parison moulds”, “The presence of two nozzles 105a and 105b advantageously reduces the
complexity and the amplitude of the movement of the arm to be implemented by the robot to
orient the arm into the lubrication position of the first and of the second half-mould.”
wherein the spray head is movable between different stations within the IS machine; [0052],
“the device according to the invention comprises a rail along which said robot can be moved,
said rail following the different parison moulds of the I.S. machine.”
While Valli teaches mechanical coupling between part 1 of a robot arm and a robot connection,
as well as noting that part 1 is the removable part of the arm of the robot which can
easily be replaced in case of destructive collision, as well as suggests a robot connection to the
mechanical coupling in Fig. 2 by use of the phrase “at the robot”[0072], Valli fails to teach, and
in an analogous art of industrial robots encompassing tool mount end effectors Ireland teaches,
a robot connection for coupling the lubricating tool and the robot; Fig. 3 Illustrates a robot 18
with a wrist 20 (Col 3 lines 8-9) which is attached to a rotatable shaft 50 (Col 3 lines 40-41),
where the combination of element 20 and element 50 can be considered the robot connection.
Further, the robot connection couples with tool 24 (Col 3 line 19) via other components.
Ireland teaches the claimed invention except for the lubricating tool. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to have a robot connection from a robot to the tool of Ireland to the robot
and lubricating tool of Valli. One would be motivated to do so to provide more degrees of
freedom to articulate the tool, as the robot connection consists of a wrist and a rotating shaft,
as noted by Ireland above.
a coupling mechanism transitionable between a connected position and an open position; Col 5
lines 7-10, 16-18, Fig2., Fig. 3, “Referring to FIGS. 7A and 7B and FIGS. 8A and 8B, the operation
of the unique magnetic coupling mechanism can be appreciated. When the coupling
mechanism is uncoupled..”, “When the magnetizable ring is retained in the back of the recess,
the two coupler components 46 and 48 can be easily joined and aligned.”
Fig. 2 illustrates magnetic coupler components 46 and 48 separating (open position) while
Fig. 3 Illustrates magnetic components 46 and 48 connected ( connecting position).
wherein the coupling mechanism connects the spray head to the robot connection in the
connected position; Col 3 lines 34-40, 11-13, Fig. 2, Fig. 3, “the distal end of the robot arm is
shown with the breakaway unit in the process of component separation. The breakaway unit
10 has a magnetic coupler mechanism with magnetic coupler components 46 and 48
connected, respectively to the robot wrist and the tool mount”, “ The tool mount 22 supports
a tool 23 with…comprises a welding torch 24”.
and the coupling mechanism releases connection between the spray head and the robot
connection in the open position; Fig. 2. Fig. 2 illustrates magnetic coupling mechanism 44 with
magnetic couplers 46 and 48 separated (open position). The connection is released between
the robot joint 20 and the welding torch 24.
wherein the coupling mechanism transitions to the open position when a force is transmitted
to the robot connection or the lubricating tool; Col 3 Lines 34-36, 47-53, Col 4 lines 38-40,
“Referring to FIG.2, the distal end of the robot arm is shown with the breakaway unit in the
process of component separation, “…the magnetic coupler mechanism provides protection to
the tool (and to the object contacted)..” when a tool collides with an object. “When a collision
occurs and a separation is initiated…”. Fig. 2 illustrates a force transmitted to the tool (welding
torch) causing separation (open position ) between magnetic coupling mechanism 44 elements
46 and 48”, “By adjusting the distance between the ring 96 and the magnets 86 in the cup 84,
the effective force required for separation can thereby be adjusted”.
wherein the robot connection includes a sensor, which detects when the coupling mechanism
is in the connected position or the open position and wherein the sensor is connected to a
switch apparatus, using which the operation of the station at which the spray head is currently
located can be terminated, and/or by means of which a robot action can be initiated when it is
detected by the sensor that the coupling mechanism is in the open position; Col 3 lines 53-57,
“When a collision occurs and a separation is initiated, a detection switch 56 signals the robot
that emergency shutdown procedures must be initiated. The switch 56 is part of a switch
mechanism 58 that is triggered on separation of the … magnetic coupler mechanism 44.”
Ireland discloses the claimed invention b)-f) above except the magnetic coupling mechanism being
a part of an Individual Section (IS) machine and the tool being a spray head. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to incorporate the breakaway magnetic coupling mechanism and sensor/switch
mechanism of Ireland in the IS machine of Valli that includes a robot arm with an attached
lubricating tool/spray head, one being motivated to do so for the purpose of preventing damage to
the robot, tooling, and the IS Machine and further to prevent serious injury to persons. Breakaway
couplings are common industry where robots are deployed. A person of ordinary skill has
good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further, Ireland
the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the sensor and switch mechanism, which
resides under magnetic element 48. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the sensor and
switch mechanism, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without
modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have
been motivated to rearrange for the purpose of equipment design requirements and process
needs, which is common in the industrial environment. It has generally been recognized that to
shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level
of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
But Ireland fails to teach,
wherein the robot connection includes a sensor, which detects when the coupling mechanism
is in the connected position or the open position and wherein the sensor is connected to a
switch apparatus, using which the operation of the station at which the spray head is currently
located can be terminated. In essence Ireland fails to teach a sensor that can detect, both when
coupling mechanism is in the connection position or when the coupling mechanism it is in an
open position (the sensor can detect dual states of the coupling mechanism).
In an analogous endeavor of robotics, sensors and disengaging robots from tools to promote safety,
Thunell teaches a coupler, coupling, sensing and interlock circuitry for a tool changer. The tool changer
comprises a tool unit and master unit, two coupling sensors (the sensor) providing two output signals
and the output signals are sent to the safety controller to determine if the tool unit is coupled to the
master unit [0009]. This would imply there is also a determination if the coupler is decoupled. Further,
the output signals are processed by processing circuitry that when certain
conditions are met, sends control signals for an action to take place (in this instance, to decouple)
([0010], [0018]). In summary, Thunell provides safety control architecture where the sensor can sense
both coupled and decoupled situations and based upon the signals of the sensor, system actions (safety
controller) are permitted under certain conditions and when the coupling state (coupled) is confirmed.
Thunell teaches the claimed invention except for the system action being to terminate the operation of
the station of an IS machine. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the safety control architecture of Thunell
in the method of Valli, one being motivated to do so to reduce the risk of failure of output signals or
malfunction of the sensor (as there are two sensors) as well as reduce the risk a post sensor detection
action being done erroneously, as well as to enhance safety, as note by Thunell ([0007], lines 12-16,
[0008] line 3, [0019].
Regarding Claim 2, Valli, Ireland and Thunell as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of
the limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
the coupling is a magnetic coupling. Ireland teaches the instant claim in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Valli, Ireland and Thunell as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of
the limitations of claim 1.
Ireland further teaches wherein,
the coupling is a safety coupling comprising a mechanism which reversibly detaches the spray
head from the robot connection when a force exceeding a predetermined force value is applied
to the spray head; Col 4, lines 36-40, lines 15-27, Col 5 lines 7-27, Fig. 5, Fig. 7A-B, Fig. 8A-B. In
regard to the magnetic coupling of Ireland, “…the adjustment screws 98 are threaded into the
ring 96 but are displaceable…By adjusting the distance between the ring 96, and the magnets
86 in the cup 84, the effective force required for separation can thereby be adjusted”. Col 5
lines 7-27 describe the mechanism of recoupling magnetic elements 46 and 48 so that they “
can be easily joined and aligned”. Fig. 5 , Fig. 7A-B, Fig. 8A-B illustrate the magnetic mechanism
inside magnetic coupling mechanism 44 in magnetic elements 46 and 48. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to use the safety coupling with the mechanism that reversibly detaches the spray
head when a force exceeding a predetermined force is applied of Ireland to the apparatus of
Valli. One would have been motivated to do so as provide for a decreasing force of resistance
on deflection allowing precise control of the force setting and to provide for a safe recoupling,
as noted by Ireland (Col 1 lines 65-67, Col 2 lines 35-38)
Regarding Claim 4 - Valli, Ireland and Thunell as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of
the limitations of claim 1.
Thunell further teaches wherein,
the switch apparatus is designed and configured such that the operation of the station at which
the spray head is currently located is permitted again when it is established by the sensor that
the coupling is closed again;
In Claim 1, Thunell provides safety control architecture where the sensor can sense
both coupled and decoupled situations and based upon the signals of the sensor, system actions (safety
controller) are permitted under certain conditions and when the coupling state (coupled) is confirmed.
[0009], [0010], [0018].Thunell teaches the claimed invention except for the system action being to
permit the operation of the station of an IS machine. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the safety control
architecture of Thunell in the method of Valli, one being motivated to do so to reduce the risk of failure
of output signals or malfunction of the sensor (as there are two sensors) as well as reduce the risk a post
sensor detection action being done erroneously, as well as to enhance safety, as note by Thunell
([0007], lines 12-16, [0008] line 3, [0019].
Regarding Claim 8 - Valli, Ireland and Thunell as combined in the rejection of
claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
wherein the spray head comprises:
a first spray head coupled to the robot connection via the coupling mechanism;
a second spray head coupled to the robot connection via the coupling mechanism; and
a third spray head coupled to the robot connection via the coupling mechanism.
Claim 1 teaches the instant claim previously in regard to spray heads (nozzles) being coupled to the robot connection via the coupling mechanism.
Valli teaches the use of two spray nozzles 105a and 105b [0068], i.e. a first and second spray head but fails to teach a third spray head.
Vallie discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the spray head . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the spray head, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the spray head for the purpose of ensuring enough lubricant was delivered to the proper locations. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding Claim 9 - Valli, Ireland and Thunell as combined in the rejection of
claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ireland teaches wherein (Ireland previously taught a robot connection (combination of element 20 and 50) in claim 1).
the robot connection includes a head portion and a body portion,
the body portion has a cylindrical shape,
the coupling mechanism has a cylindrical shape that corresponds and couples to the body portion of the robot connection.
See Annotated Fig. 3 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
1218
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cylindrical coupling shapes are a routine mechanical configuration. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB 20180201537A1 by Valli et. al (herein “Valli”), in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,954,446 by Ireland (herein “Ireland”) and in further view of USPGPUB 20200368920A1 by Thunell et. al. (herein “Thunell”) and in further view of PGPUB 20100294856A1 by Griesenbruch et. al (“herein Griesenbruch”).
Regarding Claims 5, Valli, Ireland and Thunell as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of
the limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach:
a control airline, a lubricant line, and an atomizing air line as part of the robot connection, where at least one of these lines extends at least partly in the interior of the spray head holder to which the spray head is fastened.
In the analogous endeavor of robotic arms with end-effectors or tools for industrial automated
equipment applications, Griesenbruch teaches an automatic spraying device 200 for a coating liquid and
its combination with a robot; [0001]. Presented are fluid ducts for a coating liquid 74, control
compressed air 75, and atomizing compressed air 76 where each has a respective duct inlet opening
74.1/75.1/76.1 on a face of head holder 5.1 and where the fluid ducts 74/75/76/ extend partly (and
completely) in the interior of the head holder 5. The spray head 10 is attached to the head holder 5; Fig.
5, [0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the spray head device of Griesenbruch in the combination, to
deploy a modular spraying device that can accommodate a number of embodiments as well as provide
for a spraying device that can be exchanged in a short amount of time, per Griesenbruch [0004].
While Griesenbruch teaches a coating liquid 74 used in a fluid duct, Griesenbach fails to teach the
lubricant of the combination used in a fluid duct. The scope and content of the prior art is similar to the
instant claim, in that a spraying device attached to a robot arm is used to coat a desired object. It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to substitute the coating liquid of Griesenbruch with the lubricant of the combination,
since it has held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the
basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to substitute the coating
liquid with the lubricant for the purpose of coating molds for glass shaping. The selection of a known
material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination,
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 6, which depends on claim 5, Valli, Ireland and Thunell as combined in the rejection of
claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach:
wherein the control air line, the lubricant line, and the atomizing air line all extend completely
in the interior of the spray head holder and are each provided with a connection adjacently to
the coupling, and a hose is attached to each of the connections and is connected to a relevant
connection of the robot connection at its other end in order to supply the spray head with
control air, lubricant, or atomizing air.
Griesenbruch further teaches the air line, lubricant line and atomizing line extending completely in the
interior of the spray head holder; elements 74/75/76, Fig. 5, [0038]. In addition, the spray device has
attached a tube connecting apparatus adjacent to the spray device; [0027] lines 15-17. Tubes 310 are
attached to each of the connection locations of the tube connecting apparatus and the tubes are pushed
back into the robot flange 308 and into the robot arm 302; Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0027] lines 20-29. The tubes
supply the spraying device with liquid and gaseous fluids; [0027], lines 1-5.
The combination does not teach:
a control line, a lubricant line and an atomizing line each provided with a connection
adjacently to the coupling;
a hose (tube) connection to a relevant connection on the robot connection at its other end.
Griesenbruch discloses the claimed invention except for the rearrangement of the location of
the connection adjacently to the coupling, and the hose (tube) connection to a relevant connection on
the robot connection at its other end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of
the connection adjacently to the coupling, and the hose (tube) connection to a relevant connection on
the robot connection since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without
modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. . One would have
been motivated to rearrange the cited elements for the purpose of creating a modular system using
identical elements, per Griesenbruch [0005]. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of
parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in
the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 4164
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741