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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 is misleading because reference numeral 7 points to a diagonal surface while the other figures and description point to the side vertical surface as being the cam 7. 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.
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.
Claims 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the continuously increasing width". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) s 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizk (US 8,919,714) in view of Pehlivan (PGPub 2022/0111529).
Re Claim 1, Rizk discloses a tool exchange assembly 106 configured to swap change tool assemblies, said tool exchange assembly 106 comprising one or more grippers each gripper comprising two opposing rails 430a, 430b (Fig. 1, 7-8; col. 7), wherein each of said opposing rails extend from a respective base to a respective end and form a cam (see interior surface with tapering width on end of rail; Fig. 1, 7-8; col. 7) with increasing width along a path from said end to said base (Fig. 1, 7-8; Col. 7: see adjacent ramp 438a/438b which forms the increasing width for the cam), wherein said cam [is configured to be positioned in a gap between outer parts of the tool assemblies where the outer parts are relatively movable with regard to each other]. Rizk does not disclose at least one detector is provided to separately determine whether a tool assembly and a tool manipulator is present at the gripper. However, Pehlivan teaches at least one detector [is provided to separately determine whether a tool assembly and a tool manipulator is present at the gripper] (para. 39, 50-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least one detector, as taught by Pehlivan, for the purpose of monitoring and determining if tools are present such that they can be picked up and/or stored effectively and to optimize automation of their use. Furthermore, note that this is a product claim and not a method claim, thus the limitations in brackets [ ] is/are an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCCPA 1963). This also applies to dependent claims below.
Re Claim 2, Rizk discloses the one or more grippers is a single gripper (Fig. 1, 7-8).
Re Claim 3, Rizk does not disclose the at least one detector comprises first and second sensors provided at the gripper with different distance thereto, the first sensor is configured to determine exclusively the tool assembly position and the second sensor is configured to determine exclusively the tool manipulator position. However, Pehlivan teaches first and second sensors are provided with different distance thereto, first sensor [being configured to determine exclusively the tool assembly position] and second sensor [being configured to determine exclusively the tool manipulator position] (para. 39, 50-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two sensors, as taught by Pehlivan, for the purpose of monitoring and determining if tools are present such that they can be picked up and/or stored effectively and to optimize automation of their use.
Re Claim 4, Rizk discloses the gripper comprises at least one rotation stopper 460 or 454 or 458b [configured to engage with a recess provided in the gap between outer parts of the tool assemblies] (Fig. 1, 7-8).
Re Claim 5, Rizk does not disclose said detector is configured to communicate with a control unit configured to control movement of the tool manipulator wherein the detector provides information to the control unit regarding the tool assembly position relative to the at least one gripper. However, Pehlivan teaches said detector is [configured to communicate with a control unit configured to control movement of the tool manipulator wherein the detector provides information to the control unit regarding the tool assembly position relative to the at least one gripper] (para. 54-55, 63-83). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a control unit, as taught by Pehlivan, for the purpose of monitoring and determining if tools are present such that they can be picked up and/or stored effectively and to optimize automation of their use and to control a robot arm effectively such that it can properly move components as desired.
Re Claim 6, Rizk discloses set of at least one tool exchange assembly according to claim 1 and a tool assembly 120 being provided with a socket (see hollow socket on right in fig. 6) and an outer sleeve (any of the components coaxial with the socket), the outer sleeve [being movable in an axial direction when being engaged with the gripper] (fig. 6).
Re Claim 7, Rizk discloses the outer sleeve of the tool assembly [is part of a ball coupling] (fig. 6; capable of being part of a ball coupling).
Re Claim 8, Rizk discloses apparatus comprising a tool manipulator (robotic arm; col. 7, line 51+) and at least one tool exchange assembly according claim 1 (fig. 1, 6-8).
Re Claim 9, Rizk discloses apparatus comprising a tool manipulator (robotic arm; col. 7, line 51+) and at least one set according to claim 6 (fig. 1, 6-8).
Re Claim 11, Rizk discloses the respective ends of each of the two opposing rails comprises a tapered section (Fig. 1, 7-8).
Re Claim 12, Rizk discloses a tool exchange assembly according to claim 1, wherein the respective ends of each of the two opposing rails comprises a tapered section, and wherein a portion of the cam of each of the two opposing rails is on the tapered section of each of the two opposing rails (Fig. 1, 7-8; see adjacent ramp 438a/438b which forms the increasing width for the cam).
Re Claim 13, Rizk discloses the respective ends of each of the two opposing rails are tapered (Fig. 1, 7-8; see adjacent ramp 438a/438b which forms the increasing width for the cam), and wherein the cam of each of the two opposing rails extend from the ends to the base and have a continuously increasing width along a path from said end to said base (Fig. 1, 7-8; see adjacent ramp 438a/438b which forms the increasing width for the cam).
Re Claim 14, Rizk discloses each of the two opposing rails comprise a ramp section adjacent to the respective ends of each opposing rail, and wherein the respective cam of each opposing rail is located on the respective ramp section and comprises a continuously increasing width that is perpendicular to a direction of extension of said rail (Fig. 1, 7-8; see adjacent ramp 438a/438b which forms the increasing width for the cam).
Re Claim 15, Rizk discloses the respective cam of each opposing rail comprises: (i) a continuously increasing width that is perpendicular to a direction of extension of said rail in the ramp section and (ii) a constant width from the ramp section to the base (Fig. 1, 7-8; see adjacent ramp 438a/438b which forms the increasing width for the cam and constant width after).
Claim(s) s 1-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreisig (US 4,858,980) in view of Pehlivan (PGPub 2022/0111529).
Re Claim 1, Dreisig discloses a tool exchange assembly 61 configured to swap change tool assemblies, said tool exchange assembly comprising one or more grippers 61 each gripper comprising two opposing rails 62, 63 (Fig. 12), wherein each of said opposing rails extend from a respective base to a respective end and form a cam with increasing width along a path from said end to said base (see description of cam surfaces which deflect due to tool insertion force; col. 7, lines 1-53; Fig. 12 has symmetrical rails 62, 63 which have an increasing width when the tool is inserted; see increasing change shown for Fig. 11, which would happen to both jaws in Fig. 12; col. 8, lines 1-10), wherein said cam [is configured to be positioned in a gap between outer parts of the tool assemblies where the outer parts are relatively movable with regard to each other] Dreisig does not disclose at least one detector is provided to separately determine whether a tool assembly and a tool manipulator is present at the gripper. However, Pehlivan teaches at least one detector [is provided to separately determine whether a tool assembly and a tool manipulator is present at the gripper] (para. 39, 50-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least one detector, as taught by Pehlivan, for the purpose of monitoring and determining if tools are present such that they can be picked up and/or stored effectively and to optimize automation of their use. Furthermore, note that this is a product claim and not a method claim, thus the limitations in brackets [ ] is/are an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCCPA 1963). This also applies to dependent claims below.
Re Claim 2, Dreisig discloses the one or more grippers is a single gripper (Fig. 12).
Re Claim 3, Dreisig does not disclose the at least one detector comprises first and second sensors provided at the gripper with different distance thereto, the first sensor is configured to determine exclusively the tool assembly position and the second sensor is configured to determine exclusively the tool manipulator position. However, Pehlivan teaches first and second sensors are provided with different distance thereto, first sensor [being configured to determine exclusively the tool assembly position] and second sensor [being configured to determine exclusively the tool manipulator position] (para. 39, 50-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two sensors, as taught by Pehlivan, for the purpose of monitoring and determining if tools are present such that they can be picked up and/or stored effectively and to optimize automation of their use.
Re Claim 4, Dreisig discloses the gripper comprises at least one rotation stopper (left tab next to tool; fig. 12) [configured to engage with a recess provided in the gap between outer parts of the tool assemblies].
Re Claim 5, Dreisig does not disclose said detector is configured to communicate with a control unit configured to control movement of the tool manipulator wherein the detector provides information to the control unit regarding the tool assembly position relative to the at least one gripper. However, Pehlivan teaches said detector is [configured to communicate with a control unit configured to control movement of the tool manipulator wherein the detector provides information to the control unit regarding the tool assembly position relative to the at least one gripper] (para. 54-55, 63-83). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a control unit, as taught by Pehlivan, for the purpose of monitoring and determining if tools are present such that they can be picked up and/or stored effectively and to optimize automation of their use and to control a robot arm effectively such that it can properly move components as desired.
Re Claim 6, Dreisig discloses set of at least one tool exchange assembly according to claim 1 and a tool assembly being provided with a socket and an outer sleeve 15, the outer sleeve being movable in an axial direction when being engaged with the gripper (fig. 3b, 12, 24).
Re Claim 7, Dreisig discloses the outer sleeve of the tool assembly is [part of a ball coupling] (fig. 3b, 12, 24; capable of being part of a ball coupling).
Re Claim 8, Dreisig discloses apparatus comprising a tool manipulator (col. 4, line 47) and at least one tool exchange assembly according claim 1 (fig. 12).
Re Claim 9, Dreisig discloses apparatus comprising a tool manipulator (col. 4, line 47) and at least one set according to claim 6 (fig. 3b, 12, 24).
Re Claim 11, Dreisig discloses the respective ends of each of the two opposing rails comprises a tapered section (Fig. 12).
Re Claim 12, Dreisig discloses a tool exchange assembly according to claim 1, wherein the respective ends of each of the two opposing rails comprises a tapered section, and wherein a portion of the cam of each of the two opposing rails is on the tapered section of each of the two opposing rails (Fig. 12).
Claim(s) s 1-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voellmer (US 5,044,063) in view of Pehlivan (PGPub 2022/0111529).
Re Claim 1, Voellmer discloses a tool exchange assembly configured to swap change tool assemblies, said tool exchange assembly comprising one or more grippers 72 each gripper comprising two opposing rails 76, 78, wherein each of said opposing rails extend from a respective base to a respective end and form a cam (inside of rails 76, 78) with increasing width along a path from said end to said base (Fig. 1), wherein said cam [is configured to be positioned in a gap between outer parts of the tool assemblies where the outer parts are relatively movable with regard to each other] Voellmer does not disclose at least one detector is provided to separately determine whether a tool assembly and a tool manipulator is present at the gripper. However, Pehlivan teaches at least one detector [is provided to separately determine whether a tool assembly and a tool manipulator is present at the gripper] (para. 39, 50-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least one detector, as taught by Pehlivan, for the purpose of monitoring and determining if tools are present such that they can be picked up and/or stored effectively and to optimize automation of their use. Furthermore, note that this is a product claim and not a method claim, thus the limitations in brackets [ ] is/are an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCCPA 1963). This also applies to dependent claims below.
Re Claim 2, Voellmer discloses the one or more grippers is a single gripper 72 (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 3, Voellmer does not disclose the at least one detector comprises first and second sensors provided at the gripper with different distance thereto, the first sensor is configured to determine exclusively the tool assembly position and the second sensor is configured to determine exclusively the tool manipulator position. However, Pehlivan teaches first and second sensors are provided with different distance thereto, first sensor [being configured to determine exclusively the tool assembly position] and second sensor [being configured to determine exclusively the tool manipulator position] (para. 39, 50-55). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize two sensors, as taught by Pehlivan, for the purpose of monitoring and determining if tools are present such that they can be picked up and/or stored effectively and to optimize automation of their use.
Re Claim 4, Voellmer discloses the gripper comprises at least one rotation stopper 102 [configured to engage with a recess provided in the gap between outer parts of the tool assemblies] (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 5, Voellmer does not disclose said detector is configured to communicate with a control unit configured to control movement of the tool manipulator wherein the detector provides information to the control unit regarding the tool assembly position relative to the at least one gripper. However, Pehlivan teaches said detector is [configured to communicate with a control unit configured to control movement of the tool manipulator wherein the detector provides information to the control unit regarding the tool assembly position relative to the at least one gripper] (para. 54-55, 63-83). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a control unit, as taught by Pehlivan, for the purpose of monitoring and determining if tools are present such that they can be picked up and/or stored effectively and to optimize automation of their use and to control a robot arm effectively such that it can properly move components as desired.
Re Claim 6, Voellmer discloses set of at least one tool exchange assembly according to claim 1 and a tool assembly 14 being provided with a socket 130 and an outer sleeve 136, the outer sleeve being movable in an axial direction when being engaged with the gripper (fig. 1-4).
Re Claim 7, Voellmer discloses the outer sleeve of the tool assembly is [part of a ball coupling] (fig. 1-4; capable of being part of a ball coupling).
Re Claim 8, Voellmer discloses apparatus comprising a tool manipulator 12 and at least one tool exchange assembly according claim 1 (fig. 1).
Re Claim 9, Voellmer discloses apparatus comprising a tool manipulator 12 and at least one set according to claim 6 (fig. 1).
Re Claim 11, Voellmer discloses the respective ends of each of the two opposing rails comprises a tapered section (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 12, Voellmer discloses a tool exchange assembly according to claim 1, wherein the respective ends of each of the two opposing rails comprises a tapered section, and wherein a portion of the cam of each of the two opposing rails is on the tapered section of each of the two opposing rails (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 13, Voellmer discloses the respective ends of each of the two opposing rails are tapered, and wherein the cam of each of the two opposing rails extend from the ends to the base and have a continuously increasing width along a path from said end to said base (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799