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
Applicant's submission filed on August 19, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claims 1-12 were amended. Claims 1-12 are in the application and pending examination. Claim 13 was previously been withdrawn. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) based on the limitation “the portions 13, 14 and 15 can be formed by a surface, not shown, equipped with runway limiters, “ in claim 4 and paragraph 39 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) is withdrawn based on the deletion of this term from the claims.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “powered vehicle of at least double-tracked and steerable construction” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to the claims 1, 5-7 and 9-10 are withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 1, 5-7 and 9-10.
It is unclear if the double-tracked limitation in claim 1 refers to the two steerable running wheels 20 or running wheel unit 19 in paragraph 40. Clarification is suggested.
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.
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: “conveying unit” in claims 1 and 5, “conveying portion” in claim 4, “return portion” in claim 4, “holding unit” in claims 5-6 and 9-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 4 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 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-4 and 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012119716 A1 to Tietze (hereinafter Tietze) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190255701 to Blankespoor et al (hereinafter Blankespoor) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180313715 A1 to Cichosz et al (hereinafter Cichosz) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Tietze teaches a conveyinq system (16) for a dip-coating system (12), having at least one conveying unit ( 18 a-c) , which can be moved parallel to a conveying direction, in which workpieces (10) to be treated can be conveyed through the dip-coating system (12), along a dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42) of the dip-coating system (12), wherein with the conveying unit a workpiece (10) can be moved in the conveying direction and at the same time can be dipped in a dipping bath (F) contained in the dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42) , comprising a runway (28) that can be disposed laterally beside the dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42), wherein the conveying unit ( 18 a-c) has a vehicle (20) which is disposed with the ability to travel on the runway (28) for conveying of the workpiece (10). (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Tietze does not explicitly teach the conveying unit (18 a-c) has a powered vehicle (20) of at least steerable construction.
Blankespoor teaches a method for operating a robot including a manipulator arm.
Blankespoor teaches robots are steerable and include powered vehicle. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51 and 60. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the conveying unit ( 18 a-c) include a powered vehicle (20) of at least steerable construction, because Blankespoor teaches this would allow for control and monitoring of the robot. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51, 60, and 84; and Figs. 1-5. )
Tietze does not explicitly teach the conveying unit has a powered vehicle of at least double-tracked construction, which powered vehicle is configured to travel on the runway for conveying of the workpiece.
Cichosz teaches a method for operating a robot.
Cichosz teaches the conveying unit (18 a-c) has a powered vehicle (20) of at least double-tracked construction (double wheel), which powered vehicle is configured to travel on the runway for conveying of the workpiece. (See Cichosz, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraph 37. ) Examiner is considering double wheel to be equivalent to double-tracked construction.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the conveying unit has a powered vehicle of at least double-tracked construction, which powered vehicle is configured to travel on the runway for conveying of the workpiece, because Cichosz teaches this type of construction would allow the object to be easily moved. (See Cichosz, Abstract, Figs. 1-6, and paragraph 37. )
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 ( conveying system for a dip-coating system). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Tietze in view of Blankespoor and Cichosz would be capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. can be conveyed, can be moved, can be disposed, disposed to travel). 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. Tietze in view of Blankespoor and Cichosz would be capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Tietze does not explicitly teach wherein the powered vehicle is an electric vehicle.
Blankespoor teaches the wherein the powered vehicle is an electric vehicle. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51 and 60.) Examiner is considering a vehicle with a battery power source as an equivalent to an electric vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the powered vehicle is an electric vehicle, because Blankespoor teaches this would various components of the robot to be powered. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51 and 60. )
Regarding claim 3, Tietze does not explicitly teach wherein the powered vehicle is set up for autonomous driving.
Blankespoor teaches the wherein the powered vehicle is set up for autonomous driving. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51, 60, and 84; and Figs. 1-5. )Examiner is considering a vehicle with a battery power source as an equivalent to an electric vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the powered vehicle is set up for autonomous driving, because Blankespoor teaches this control system would allow the operation of the robot to be monitored and controlled. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51, 60, and 84; and Figs. 1-5. )
Regarding claim 4, Tietze teaches the runway (portion of 28 alongside 38, 40) has a conveying portion (18) that can be disposed laterally beside the dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42) , a return portion (portion of 28 near the top above 42 in Fig. 2) disposed on a side of the conveying portion (13) opposite to a side of the conveying portion facing the dip-coating tank (42), and two transition portions (portion of 28 after 42 and portion of 28 alongside 36 before 42) respectively joining the conveying portion (28) and the return portion (portion of 28 near the top above 42) end-to-end with one another. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 11, Tietze teaches a dip-coating system (12) having at least one dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42) and at least one conveying system (16) for conveying of workpieces (10) to be treated in a conveying direction through the dip-coating system (12), wherein the conveying system (16) is formed according to claim 1. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 12, Tietze teaches the runway (28) is below the height level of the upper edges of the dip tanks (38, 40, 42) in other words the runway is raised above the floor. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have braced the runway against the shop floor (5) by means of a load-bearing substructure with a reasonable expectation of success because this would allow the robot to reach the tanks in their position below the floor. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
The previous rejection of claims 5-7 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012119716 A1 to Tietze (hereinafter Tietze) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190255701 to Blankespoor et al (hereinafter Blankespoor) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180313715 A1 to Cichosz et al (hereinafter Cichosz) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190366556 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 5, Tietze teaches the conveying unit (18a-c) has, for holding the workpiece (10) and carried by the powered vehicle (20), a holding unit (24), which has a holding cantilever arm (extending from BA4 to BA2 in Fig. 1). (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Tietze does not explicitly teach a counterweight, wherein the counterweight is disposed in such a way relative to the holding cantilever arm that moments acting on the powered vehicle via the holding cantilever arm loaded with the workpiece can be at least balanced out with the counterweight.
Wang is directed to a movable robot for carrying loads.
Wang teaches a counterweight (46), wherein the counterweight (46) is disposed in such a way relative to the holding cantilever arm (53) that moments acting on the powered vehicle (1) via the holding cantilever arm (53) loaded with the workpiece (6) can be at least balanced out with the counterweight (46). (See Wang, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 10, 15, 37, and Figs. 1-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a counterweight, wherein the counterweight is disposed in such a way relative to the holding cantilever arm that moments acting on the powered vehicle via the holding cantilever arm loaded with the workpiece can be at least balanced out with the counterweight, because Wang teaches this would provide stable support in the operating process. (See Wang, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 10, 15, 37, and Figs. 1-11).
Regarding claim 6, Tietze teaches the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4) is disposed around a horizontal turning axis (BA4) and configured to turn about a rest of the holding unit. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 7, Tietze teaches the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4) has a holding portion (24), which is connected to the workpiece (10) and can be detached from the workpiece nondestructively, and, relative to the rest of the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4), is disposed laterally offset from the horizontal turning axis. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 9, Tietze teaches the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4) is disposed in vertically displaceable manner on the rest of the holding unit. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 10, Tietze teaches the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4) is disposed around a vertical swivel axis (BA2, BA3, BA4) and configured to swivel around a rest of the holding unit (22a), or the holding unit (22) is disposed around the vertical swivel axis (BA2, BA3, BA4) and configured to turn about the powered vehicle (22). (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012119716 A1 to Tietze (hereinafter Tietze) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20190255701 to Blankespoor et al (hereinafter Blankespoor) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20180313715 A1 to Cichosz et al (hereinafter Cichosz) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190366556 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 5 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190366556 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 8, Tietze does not explicitly teach a mushroom pin (29) that can be connected with the workpiece (4) is disposed laterally on the holding cantilever arm (23).
Tadayon is directed to a movable robot for carrying loads.
Tadayon teaches it is known to connect a robot to a conventional attachment. (See Tadayon, Abstract, paragraph 74, and Figs. 1-39).
Examiner is considering a mushroom pin to a conventional attachment.
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have at least one mushroom pin (29) that can be connected with the workpiece (4) is disposed laterally on the holding cantilever arm, with a reasonable expectation of success because this would allow the robot to reach the tanks in their position below the floor. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Claims 1, 4, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012119716 A1 to Tietze (hereinafter Tietze) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200101609 A1 to He et al (hereinafter He) .
Regarding claim 1, Tietze teaches a conveyinq system (16) for a dip-coating system (12), having at least one conveying unit ( 18 a-c) , which can be moved parallel to a conveying direction, in which workpieces (10) to be treated can be conveyed through the dip-coating system (12), along a dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42) of the dip-coating system (12), wherein with the conveying unit a workpiece (10) can be moved in the conveying direction and at the same time can be dipped in a dipping bath (F) contained in the dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42) , comprising a runway (28) that can be disposed laterally beside the dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42), wherein the conveying unit ( 18 a-c) has a vehicle (20) which is disposed with the ability to travel on the runway (28) for conveying of the workpiece (10). (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Tietze does not explicitly teach the conveying unit has a powered vehicle (20) of at least steerable construction.
He teaches a method for conveying a robot.
He teaches robots are steerable and include powered vehicle (20 AGV). (See He, Abstract, paragraphs 184-194, 200-210. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the conveying unit include a powered vehicle of at least steerable construction, because He teaches this would improve the applicability of the system for conveying an industrial robot. (See He, Abstract, paragraphs 184-194, 200-210. )
Tietze does not explicitly teach the conveying unit has a powered vehicle of at least double-tracked construction, which powered vehicle is configured to travel on the runway for conveying of the workpiece.
He teaches the conveying unit (40) has a powered vehicle (20) of at least double-tracked construction (double wheel 204), which powered vehicle is configured to travel on the runway for conveying of the workpiece. (See He, Abstract, paragraphs 184-194, 200-210. )Examiner is considering double wheel to be equivalent to double-tracked construction.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the conveying unit has a powered vehicle of at least double-tracked construction, which powered vehicle is configured to travel on the runway for conveying of the workpiece, because He teaches this type of construction would allow the robot to be easily moved. (See He, Abstract, paragraphs 184-194, 200-210. )
Intended use language is located in the preamble of claim 1 ( conveying system for a dip-coating system). A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Tietze in view of He would be capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. can be conveyed, can be moved, can be disposed, disposed to travel). 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. Tietze in view of He would be capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Tietze teaches the runway (portion of 28 alongside 38, 40) has a conveying portion (18) that can be disposed laterally beside the dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42) , a return portion (portion of 28 near the top above 42 in Fig. 2) disposed on a side of the conveying portion (13) opposite to a side of the conveying portion facing the dip-coating tank (42), and two transition portions (portion of 28 after 42 and portion of 28 alongside 36 before 42) respectively joining the conveying portion (28) and the return portion (portion of 28 near the top above 42) end-to-end with one another. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 11, Tietze teaches a dip-coating system (12) having at least one dip-coating tank (38, 40, 42) and at least one conveying system (16) for conveying of workpieces (10) to be treated in a conveying direction through the dip-coating system (12), wherein the conveying system (16) is formed according to claim 1. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 12, Tietze teaches the runway (28) is below the height level of the upper edges of the dip tanks (38, 40, 42) in other words the runway is raised above the floor. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have braced the runway against the shop floor (5) by means of a load-bearing substructure with a reasonable expectation of success because this would allow the robot to reach the tanks in their position below the floor. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012119716 A1 to Tietze (hereinafter Tietze) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200101609 A1 to He et al (hereinafter He) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190255701 to Blankespoor et al (hereinafter Blankespoor).
Regarding claim 2, Tietze does not explicitly teach wherein the powered vehicle is an electric vehicle.
Blankespoor teaches the wherein the powered vehicle is an electric vehicle. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51 and 60.) Examiner is considering a vehicle with a battery power source as an equivalent to an electric vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the powered vehicle is an electric vehicle, because Blankespoor teaches this would various components of the robot to be powered. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51 and 60. )
Regarding claim 3, Tietze does not explicitly teach wherein the powered vehicle is set up for autonomous driving.
Blankespoor teaches the wherein the powered vehicle is set up for autonomous driving. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51, 60, and 84; and Figs. 1-5. )Examiner is considering a vehicle with a battery power source as an equivalent to an electric vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the powered vehicle is set up for autonomous driving, because Blankespoor teaches this control system would allow the operation of the robot to be monitored and controlled. (See Blankespoor, Abstract, paragraphs 50-51, 60, and 84; and Figs. 1-5. )
Claims 5-7 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012119716 A1 to Tietze (hereinafter Tietze) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200101609 A1 to He et al (hereinafter He) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190366556 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 5, Tietze teaches the conveying unit (18a-c) has, for holding the workpiece (10) and carried by the powered vehicle (20), a holding unit (24), which has a holding cantilever arm (extending from BA4 to BA2 in Fig. 1). (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Tietze does not explicitly teach a counterweight, wherein the counterweight is disposed in such a way relative to the holding cantilever arm that moments acting on the powered vehicle via the holding cantilever arm loaded with the workpiece can be at least balanced out with the counterweight.
Wang is directed to a movable robot for carrying loads.
Wang teaches a counterweight (46), wherein the counterweight (46) is disposed in such a way relative to the holding cantilever arm (53) that moments acting on the powered vehicle (1) via the holding cantilever arm (53) loaded with the workpiece (6) can be at least balanced out with the counterweight (46). (See Wang, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 10, 15, 37, and Figs. 1-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a counterweight, wherein the counterweight is disposed in such a way relative to the holding cantilever arm that moments acting on the powered vehicle via the holding cantilever arm loaded with the workpiece can be at least balanced out with the counterweight, because Wang teaches this would provide stable support in the operating process. (See Wang, Abstract, paragraphs 5, 10, 15, 37, and Figs. 1-11).
Regarding claim 6, Tietze teaches the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4) is disposed around a horizontal turning axis (BA4) and configured to turn about a rest of the holding unit. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 7, Tietze teaches the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4) has a holding portion (24), which is connected to the workpiece (10) and can be detached from the workpiece nondestructively, and, relative to the rest of the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4), is disposed laterally offset from the horizontal turning axis. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 9, Tietze teaches the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4) is disposed in vertically displaceable manner on the rest of the holding unit. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Regarding claim 10, Tietze teaches the holding cantilever arm (arm extending from BA2 to BA4) is disposed around a vertical swivel axis (BA2, BA3, BA4) and configured to swivel around a rest of the holding unit (22a), or the holding unit (22) is disposed around the vertical swivel axis (BA2, BA3, BA4) and configured to turn about the powered vehicle (22). (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4 , pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012119716 A1 to Tietze (hereinafter Tietze) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200101609 A1 to He et al (hereinafter He) and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190366556 A1 to Wang et al (hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 5 and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150217443 A1 to Saied Tadayon (hereinafter Tadayon).
Regarding claim 8, Tietze does not explicitly teach a mushroom pin (29) that can be connected with the workpiece (4) is disposed laterally on the holding cantilever arm (23).
Tadayon is directed to a movable robot for carrying loads.
Tadayon teaches it is known to connect a robot to a conventional attachment. (See Tadayon, Abstract, paragraph 74, and Figs. 1-39).
Examiner is considering a mushroom pin to a conventional attachment.
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have at least one mushroom pin (29) that can be connected with the workpiece (4) is disposed laterally on the holding cantilever arm, with a reasonable expectation of success because this would allow the robot to reach the tanks in their position below the floor. (See Tietze, Abstract, Figs. 1-4, pages 7-12 and 17-18.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in the third paragraph on page 10 of the Remarks Section that :
“ Applicant submits that Tietze et al. does not disclose that the workpiece 10 can be immersed in a dip-coating bath F located in the dip-coating tank 38 by means conveyor unit 18 during the movement of the workpiece 10 by means of the conveyor unit 18 in the conveyor direction as set forth in Applicant’s amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner disagrees. Tietze discloses the at least one conveyor unit, multi-axis conveyor robot, is able to moved along a travel axis (VA) and the pools are arranged such that their longitudinal direction (BL) runs parallel to the common axis VA of the conveyor robots. (See Tietze, Figs. 1-4 Abstract and third paragraph, page 7 of the Machine Translation.)
Examiner is considering movement of the robot to position the substrate into the dip tank from above the dip tank and into the dip tank along the longitudinal direction to be equivalent to the limitation :
“wherein with the conveying unit a workpiece can be moved in the conveying direction and at a same time can be dipped in a dipping bath contained in the dip-coating tank” . Examiner is considering any portion of movement of the substrate (component movement in that direction of movement) along the conveying direction to be meet the limitation “wherein with the conveying unit a workpiece can be moved in the conveying direction”.
Additionally, Tietze teaches the robot horizontal movement axis BA3 and perpendicular axes BA1-BA2. (See Tietze, second paragraph, page 4 of the Machine Translation.) Movement along these axes would also meet the claim limitation discussed above.
Applicant argues in the third paragraph on page 10 of the Remarks Section that :
“In particular, due to the short length of the dip-coating tank 38 of Tietze et al., movement of the workpiece 10 immersed in the dip-coating bath F in the conveyor direction by means of conveyor unit 18 would cause the workpiece 10 to collide with a front wall of the dip-coating tank 38. Therefore, in the arrangement according to Tietze et al., the immersion and removal of the workpiece 10 into and out of the dip-coating tank 38 can only take place if there is no movement of the workpiece 10 in the direction of conveyance”
Examiner disagrees. A person of ordinary skill in the art of dip tanks and robots would readily recognize the proper dimensions and control to facilitate move along the horizontal axes.
Further, the reference does not teach any dimensions or sizes. The reference does not provide support for the relative dimension and size as argued by Appiclant’s Representative. These features shown in the Figures cannot be used as evidence of actual proportions. When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Applicant argues in the second paragraph on page 11 of the Remarks Section that :
“… the single-axis and balancing robot disclosed in Blankespoor et al. is not at all suitable for transporting vehicle bodies through a dip-coating plant due to the occurrence of high transport weights. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not have considered Blankespoor etal. in the present technical field nor would they have combined Blankespoor et al. with Tietze et al. in the manner proposed.”
Examiner disagrees. A person of ordinary skill in the art of robots would readily recognize the proper adaptations for the industry requirements i.e. weight.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “substrate with high transport weights, system for carrying high transport weights “) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues in the second paragraph on page 11 of the Remarks Section that :
“… the single-axis and balancing robot disclosed in Blankespoor et al. is not at all suitable for transporting vehicle bodies through a dip-coating plant due to the occurrence of high transport weights. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not have considered Blankespoor etal. in the present technical field nor would they have combined Blankespoor et al. with Tietze et al. in the manner proposed.”
Applicant argues in the third paragraph on page 11 of the Remarks Section that :
“Although the robot described in Blankespoor et al. can be steered by driving its wheels driven differently, Blankespoor et al. clearly fails to disclose or suggest that a workpiece can be immersed in a dip-coating bath located in a dip-coating tank by means of the robot during movement of the workpiece by means of the robot in a conveyor direction as set forth in Applicant's amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner disagrees. Blankespoor is not being relied on to teach “a workpiece can be immersed in a dip-coating bath located in a dip-coating tank by means of the robot during movement of the workpiece by means of the robot in a conveyor direction” because this is taught in the primary reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues in the fifth paragraph on page 11 of the Remarks Section that :
“Applicant submits that the robot disclosed in Cichosz et al. is likewise unsuitable for transporting vehicle bodies through a dip treatment plant due to occurrence of high transport weights.”
Examiner disagrees. Cichosz is not being relied on to teach “a workpiece can be immersed in a dip-coating bath” because this is taught in the primary reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “substrate with high transport weights, system for carrying high transport weights “) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues in the first paragraph on page 12 of the Remarks Section that :
“Although the robot described in Cichosz et al. can be steered by driving the caterpillar track chains differently, Cichosz et al. clearly fails to disclose or suggest that a workpiece can be immersed in a dip-coating bath located in a dip-coating tank by means of the robot during movement of the workpiece by means of the robot in a conveyor direction as set forth in Applicant's amended independent claim 1”
Examiner disagrees. Cichosz is not being relied on to teach “a workpiece can be immersed in a dip-coating bath located in a dip-coating tank by means of the robot during movement of the workpiece by means of the robot in a conveyor direction” because this is taught in the primary reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717