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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 8/5/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202210936735.X application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “imaging device” (claims 8 and 16) - e.g. a camera (paragraph 23).
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machino et al. (U.S. Patent 5,593,293).
Claim 1: Machino et al. discloses a part manipulator comprising: a robot arm (12 - Fig. 5) movable in three dimensional space (X, Y, Z - column 10, lines 50-64), the robot arm configured to move between a pick station (e.g. H1, Fig. 93) and a place station (H2), the robot arm including arm sections movable relative to each other (16, 18, 20, as cited above), the robot arm extending to a distal end (14) and having a planar mounting location (e.g. 34) at the distal end (Fig. 7); an end effector (hand mechanism 10) including a mounting bracket having a mounting plate (e.g. 30 of M1 or similar plates of other modules, noting they may be arranged in different orders as discussed in several alternate examples throughout the disclosure), the mounting plate of the mounting bracket being coupled to and fixed at the planar mounting location at the distal end (14) of the robot arm and located beyond the distal end of the robot arm (Fig. 7), the mounting bracket being movable with the distal end of the robot arm to position the mounting plate in the three dimensional space (being fixed thereto, the plate 30 would be movable with the end of the arm), the end effector including a rotation platform (64/84/86 - Fig. 14) coupled to the mounting plate, the rotation platform being movable relative to the mounting plate and distal end of the robot arm independent of the robot arm (column 14, lines 22-31; column 15, lines 26-32), the rotation platform rotatable about an axis (RL) parallel to the mounting plate (RL is parallel to the plane of the broad face of plate 30/62) and non-parallel to the arm section at the distal end of the robot arm (RL is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis CL of 14) between a first position and a second position (two rotational positions, e.g. angle alpha in Figs. 2-3), the end effector including a part gripper (M7) coupled to the rotation platform, the part gripper movable between a releasing position (opened) and a holding position (closed - column 37, lines 62-67; column 39, lines 21-29), the part gripper configured to hold a part (G) in the holding position, wherein the part gripper is configured to be rotated by the rotation platform (about an angle alpha) to move the part from a picking orientation in the first position (H1) to a placing orientation in the second position (H2 - see Fig. 93), the rotation platform, in the first position, holding the part gripper vertically to pick up the part in the picking orientation (see vertical orientation associated with H1), the rotation platform, in the second position, holding the part gripper horizontally to place the part in the placing orientation (while a 90-degree rotation is not shown in Fig. 93, it is contemplated and thus capable or “configured to” perform this function - see column 15, lines 58-61); the end effector closing the part gripper to pick up the part in the picking orientation at the pick station (e.g. column 42, lines 22-25); the end effector opening the part gripper to release the part in the placing orientation (H2) at the place station (column 45, line 53 - column 46, line 10); and wherein the rotation platform rotates the part gripper, relative to the robot arm (about angle alpha), between first and second positions such that the picking orientation is different than the placing orientation relative to the distal end of the robot arm (as shown in Fig. 93).
Regarding the above, 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. Limitations pertaining to the function of the manipulator are interpreted as pertaining to its intended use, and the structure of the Machino manipulator is capable of performing these functions as discussed above.
Claim 3: The rotation platform is operable independently of operation of the robot arm (implied by the overall operation of the various joints as cited above), the rotation platform movable from the first position to the second position simultaneously with the robot arm moving from the pick station to the place station (independent control of the actuators of the end effector and arm as cited above suggests the ability to also simultaneously control these actuators).
Claim 4: The part gripper includes a first gripper jaw (412) and a second gripper jaw (414), a holding space defined between the first gripper jaw and the second gripper jaw (e.g. Fig. 77), wherein the first and second gripper jaws are oriented vertically when the rotation platform is in the first position (at H1 as cited previously) and the first and second gripper jaws are oriented horizontally when the rotation platform is in the second position (if the angle were 90 degrees as is contemplated as cited previously). Again, it is noted that describing the function of the tool pertains to its intended use, and the Machino manipulator is capable of these functions.
Claim 5: The end effector includes a gripper sensor (424, 426) detecting a position of the part gripper, the robotic arm being controlled based on input from the gripper sensor (column 38, lines 24-62; column 43, lines 25-33).
Claim 6: The end effector includes a rotation platform sensor (98, 100) detecting a position of the rotation platform, the robotic arm being controlled based on input from the rotation platform sensor (column 16, lines 13-61; column 42, lines 55-59).
Claim 7: The robotic arm includes a robotic arm actuator (motors 22, 24, and 26 - column 10, lines 62-64) and the rotation platform includes a rotation platform actuator (65 - column 14, lines 27-31), the rotation platform actuator being operated independently of the robotic arm actuator (implied from the overall function of the manipulator as cited previously).
Claim 21: The rotation platform (64/84/86) is separate and discrete from the robot arm (12) and coupled to the robot arm (as cited above).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 8-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. (U.S. Patent 2015/0066200) in view of Machino et al.
Claim 8: McCarthy et al. discloses a part assembly machine (100, which may be used for assembly among other functions - paragraph 25) comprising: a pick station (110/132) having a part feeder, the part feeder having a platform (138) supporting parts (e.g. paragraph 35) in various orientations including picking orientations and orientations other than picking orientations (implied in paragraphs 26, 33, 44, 52); a vision inspection station positioned adjacent the part feeder (paragraph 30), the vision inspection station including an imaging device (camera 104, Id.) to image the parts in a field of view above the platform; a controller (128) receiving images from the imaging device (paragraph 33), the controller determining orientations of the parts on the platform from a plurality of possible orientations (e.g. paragraphs 26, 33, 44, 52), the possible orientations including a picking orientation (i.e. the components 102 may need to be in a particular orientation in order to be picked and placed, Id.), the controller determining locations of each part in the picking orientation (Id.); a part manipulator (robot 120 with gripper 122) positioned adjacent the pick station (Fig. 2) to successively pick up the parts that are in the picking orientation from the part feeder (paragraph 56), the part manipulator configured to place the corresponding picked up parts at a place station (114 - Id.), the part manipulator including a robot arm (120 - paragraph 39) and an end effector (122) coupled to a distal end of the robot arm (Fig. 2), the robot arm including arm sections (e.g. 140, 142, 144) movable relative to each other (paragraph 39), the robot arm operably coupled to the controller (paragraph 33), the robot arm movable in three dimensional space (X, Y, and Z axes - Id.) between the pick station (110) and the place station (114), the end effector operably coupled to the controller (paragraph 33), the end effector including a part gripper (122), the part gripper movable between a releasing position and a holding position (implied by a grasping motion - paragraph 63; see also paragraph 56), the part gripper configured to hold the corresponding picked up parts in the holding position (Id.), wherein the controller operates the robot arm to successively position the end effector proximate to the parts in the picking orientations (paragraph 56); wherein the controller operates the end effector to pick up the corresponding part in the picking orientation at the pick station (132 - Id.); wherein the controller operates the end effector to move the part from the picking orientation to a placing orientation (114 - Id.); wherein the controller operates the robot arm to move the end effector to the place station after the part is picked up (Id.); and wherein the controller operates the end effector to release the part in the placing orientation at the place station (Id.).
The McCarthy manipulator does not necessarily include a mounting bracket and rotation platform configuration as claimed. However, Machino teaches a robot arm (12) having an end effector (10) including a mounting bracket having a mounting plate (30 of M1 or similar plates of other modules, noting they may be arranged in different orders as discussed in several alternate examples throughout the disclosure), the mounting plate of the mounting bracket being coupled to and fixed to a planar mounting location (e.g. 34) of the robot arm (Fig. 7) at the distal end (14) of the robot arm and located beyond the distal end of the robot arm (Fig. 7), the mounting bracket being movable with the distal end of the robot arm to position the mounting plate in the three dimensional space (by virtue of the bracket being fixed to the robot arm), the end effector including a rotation platform (64/84/86 - Fig. 14) coupled to the mounting plate, the rotation platform being movable relative to the mounting plate and distal end of the robot arm independent of the robot arm (rotatable about angle alpha - column 14, lines 22-31; column 15, lines 26-32), the rotation platform rotatable about an axis (RL) parallel to the mounting plate (RL is parallel to the plane of the broad face of plate 30/62) and non-parallel to the arm section at the distal end of the robot arm (RL is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis CL of 14) between a first position and a second position (two rotational positions, e.g. angle alpha in Figs. 2-3), the end effector being coupled to the rotation platform (as cited above), wherein the part gripper is configured to be rotated by the rotation platform (about RL), the rotation platform, in the first position (H1), holding the part gripper vertically to pick up the part in the picking orientation (see Fig. 93), the rotation platform, in the second position (H2), holding the part gripper at a different angle to place the part in the placing orientation (Fig. 93). Because the end effector is rotatable up to 180 degrees about RL (column 15, lines 58-61), the resulting combination would also be capable of the rotation platform, in the second position, holding the part gripper horizontally to place the part in the placing orientation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a wrist joint as taught by Machino et al. since it attains a lightweight, high-precision, and compact structure and realizes an accurate positioning operation of a work (column 2, lines 29-37). Furthermore, in view of Machino, operating via the controller the end effector to rotate the rotation platform from the first position to the second position to move the part from the picking orientation to a placing orientation would have been obvious depending upon the requisite placement orientation of the part (e.g. McCarthy, paragraph 62). Rotating the rotation platform would inherently orient the part differently relative to the end of the robot arm. Reorienting a part between pickup and placement represents a trivial and obvious provision in the art of pick-and-place manipulation.
Claim 9: An articulated arm robot such as disclosed by McCarthy and Machino typically possess independently controlled actuators to allow the multiple degrees of freedom afforded by such a robot arm, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill for the rotation platform to have been operable independently from but also simultaneously with the robot arm.
Claim 10: The part gripper (122) of McCarthy includes a first gripper jaw and a second gripper jaw (implied by fingers of a grasping finger-type gripper - paragraph 63), a holding space defined between the first gripper jaw and the second gripper jaw (a gap for receiving a part to be gripped would necessarily be present between open fingers). However, even as modified by Machino, the first and second gripper jaws are not necessarily oriented vertically when the rotation platform is in the first position or oriented horizontally when the rotation platform is in the second position. It is noted that this is effectively a similar limitation as in claim 8 with respect to the rotation platform, and the examiner refers to the discussion above.
Claim 11: The end effector as taught by Machino further includes a gripper sensor (424, 426) detecting a position of the part gripper, the controller operating the robotic arm based on input from the gripper sensor (column 38, lines 24-62; column 43, lines 25-33)., the end effector including a rotation platform sensor (98, 100) detecting a position of the rotation platform, the controller operating the robotic arm based on input from the rotation platform sensor (column 16, lines 13-61; column 42, lines 55-59).
Claim 12: Referring to McCarthy, the robotic arm includes a robotic arm actuator (140, 142, 144) operably coupled to the controller (paragraph 39). Machino further teaches a rotation platform actuator (65 - column 14, lines 27-31) operably coupled to a controller. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for the rotation platform actuator to be operated independently of the robotic arm actuator to allow degrees of freedom of movement as discussed previously.
Claim 13: The examiner notes that the limitation “the rotation platform is configured to be rotated after initiating movement of the robot arm, wherein rotation of the rotation platform from the first position to the second position is configured to be completed prior to completion of movement of the robot arm from the pick station to the place station” pertains to the functionality of the apparatus, but the order of steps does not necessarily make a patentable distinction in the apparatus claim. In this case, because it is obvious for the actuators of the rotation platform and the robot arm to be independently controllable as discussed above, they are also presumed capable of performing the claimed steps.
Claim 14: The examiner notes that the limitation “the part manipulator is configured to pick up only the parts in the picking orientation and does not pick up the parts in other orientations” pertains to the functionality of the apparatus. In this case, as cited previously, the parts of McCarthy may need to be in a particular orientation (for example, extend axially) in order to be picked and placed (paragraph 26), and the apparatus includes a camera capable of detecting positions of the parts as well as a gripper capable of selectively picking said parts based on the camera data. It is thus presumed capable of performing the claimed functions.
Claim 15: The examiner notes that the limitation pertains to the capability of the device to be vibrated, not necessarily a requirement that it includes a vibration ability. Nevertheless, referring to McCarthy, the platform of the part feeder is vibrated to change orientations of the parts on the upper surface of the platform, and wherein the imaging device images the parts after vibration to identify orientations of the parts after vibration to identify the parts in the picking orientation (e.g. paragraphs 37, 42, 55).
Claim 16: McCarthy discloses a method of assembling parts (102 - paragraph 25), comprising: loading the parts on an upper surface (138) of a platform of a part feeder (110/132 - paragraph 53); imaging the parts on the platform using an imaging device (paragraph 54); processing images to determine orientations of the parts on the platform from a plurality of possible orientations, the possible orientations including a picking orientation and orientations other than the picking orientation (paragraph 26 - noting the components 102 may need to be in a particular orientation in order to be picked and placed, paragraph 26), and to determine locations of each of the parts that are in the picking orientation (paragraphs 54-55, noting the parts in a picking orientation would be any parts deemed able to be picked by the gripper); successively picking up parts that are in the picking orientation (paragraph 56) but not parts in orientations other than the picking orientation (implied as cited above by parts needing to be in a certain orientation to be picked) using a part manipulator including a robot arm (120 - paragraph 39) movable in three dimensional space (X, Y, and Z axes - Id.) and an end effector (122) coupled to a distal end of the robot arm, the robot arm including arm sections (e.g. 140, 142, 144) movable relative to each other (paragraph 39); and a part gripper (paragraph 63), wherein the part gripper is moved from a releasing position to a holding position to pick up the parts that are in the picking orientation (implied by grasping with fingers a cited above); after the part is picked up by the end effector, operating the robot arm to move the end effector and the part to a place station in the placing orientation (114 - paragraph 56); and operating the end effector to release the part, in the placing orientation, at the place station (Id.).
The McCarthy manipulator does not necessarily include a mounting bracket and rotation platform configuration as claimed. However, Machino teaches a robot arm (12) having an end effector (10) including a mounting bracket having a mounting plate (30 of M1 or similar plates of other modules, noting they may be arranged in different orders as discussed in several alternate examples throughout the disclosure), the mounting bracket being coupled to and fixed to a planar mounting location (e.g. 34) of the robot arm at the distal end (14) of the robot arm and located beyond the distal end of the robot arm (Fig. 7), the mounting bracket being movable with the distal end of the robot arm to position the mounting plate in the three dimensional space (by virtue of the bracket being fixed to the robot arm) and the end effector including a rotation platform (64/84/86 - Fig. 14) coupled to the mounting plate and distal end (14) of the robot arm, the rotation platform being movable independent of the robot arm (rotatable about angle alpha - column 14, lines 22-31; column 15, lines 26-32), the rotation platform rotatable about an axis (RL) parallel to the mounting plate (RL is parallel to the plane of the broad face of plate 30/62) and non-parallel to the arm section at the distal end of the robot arm (RL is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis CL of 14) between a first position and a second position (two rotational positions, e.g. angle alpha in Figs. 2-3), the part gripper (M7) being coupled to the rotation platform, the rotation platform, in a first position (H1), holding the part gripper vertically to pick up the part in the picking orientation (see Fig. 93), the rotation platform, in the second position (H2), holding the part gripper at a different angle to place the part in the placing orientation (Fig. 93), and operating the rotation platform to rotate from the first position to the second position to rotate the part from the picking orientation (H1) to a placing orientation (H2), wherein the picking orientation is different than the placing orientation relative to the distal end of the robot arm (Fig. 93). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a wrist joint as taught by Machino et al. since it attains a lightweight, high-precision, and compact structure and realizes an accurate positioning operation of a work (column 2, lines 29-37). Furthermore, because the end effector of Machino is rotatable up to 180 degrees about RL (column 15, lines 58-61), the resulting combination would also be capable of the rotation platform, in the second position, holding the part gripper horizontally to place the part in the placing orientation, and doing so would have been obvious depending upon the requisite placement orientation of the part (e.g. McCarthy, paragraph 62). Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes that specifying the rotation angle and positions of the rotation platform would result in a difference in function of the Shimizu/Maurer device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the rotation platform of Shimizu/Maurer, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the manipulator would function as intended (i.e. to grip and move parts W) given the claimed angle range. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle is only for example 90° may include other acceptable amounts (e.g. paragraphs 32, 40, and 47) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the angle/positions as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the angle/positions to horizontal/vertical, or 90° range between first and second positions, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art, and depending on the particular relative orientation required as discussed by McCarthy.
Claim 20: McCarthy further discloses vibrating the parts to change orientations of the parts on the upper surface of the platform; reimaging the parts; and processing new images of the parts to determine now orientations of the parts (e.g. paragraphs 54-55).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. and Machino et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Furuichi et al. (U.S. PGPub 2013/0209200).
Claim 17: While the robot as taught by McCarthy and Machino is presumed capable, McCarthy and Machino do not teach that said operating the rotation platform occurs simultaneously with said operating the robot arm such that the rotation of the rotation platform occurs while the end effector moves from the picking station to the placing station. However, Furuichi teaches operating a robot arm such that movements of the arm and end effector occur simultaneously (“synchronously” - paragraphs 48, 49, 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have operated the rotation platform and robot arm simultaneously since it reduces the time required to move the end effector to the desired position (Id.).
Claim 18: McCarthy and Machino teach a method substantially as claimed except for wherein said operating the rotation platform occurs after initiating said operating the robot arm and said operating the rotation platform is completed prior to completion of said operating the robot arm such that the rotation of the rotation platform from the first position to the second position occurs prior to the robot arm moving the end effector and the part to the place station. However, Furuichi teaches operating a robot arm such that operation of a rotation of an end effector (23) occurs after initiating an operating of a robot arm (21) and said operating the rotation platform is completed prior to completion of said operating the robot arm such that the rotation of the rotation platform from the first position to the second position occurs prior to the robot arm moving the end effector and the part to the place station (e.g. Figs. 4a-4d and paragraphs 64-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have operated the robot as claimed in order to have avoided the end effector interfering with or contacting external structures, for example (Id.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments rely on amendments to the claims and assert that “[t]he cited art does not describe a robot arm having a planar mounting location at a distal end of the robot arm and an end effector with a mounting bracket having a mounting plate coupled to and fixed at the planar mounting location at the distal end of the robot arm”, noting that “Mancino [sic] illustrates and discloses the z-axis arm 14 as a pin at the distal end of the robot 12 and the holding module M1 includes a fixing member 28 having semi-columnar receiving and pressing portions 36, 38 that form a through-hole 36b, 38b that receives the columnar shaped z-axis arm 14 (pin).”
The examiner submits that, for the purposes of the claimed invention, where the “robot arm” ends and where the “end effector” begins is a matter of semantics, as has been similarly discussed in prior Office Actions. While Machino designates portion 14 as the “distal end of a z-axis arm” (of the robot) and 10 as the “hand mechanism” (i.e. the end effector), the junction between the two comprises multiple parts. For example, planar portion 34 is part of the fixing member 28 which is clamped to the end of the robot arm 14. Thus, module M1, or at least the portions thereof up to and including plate 34, may effectively act as “the robot arm extending to a distal end [14] and having a planar mounting location [34] at the distal end” in that plate 34 is at the distal end of the arm 14, even if module M1 is technically designated as being part of the end effector. Because 34 comprises part of the junction between arm and hand, it could just as easily be considered as part of the end of the arm and otherwise meets the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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 K. Singh can be reached on 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726