DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the fourth line from the bottom, the word “engaged” should be changed to “engage” for better grammar and form. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, line 2, the phrase “configured to electrically connect and slider to the rail” is unclear and indefinite.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, directed towards Claims 1-15, 19 and 20 in the reply filed on 5/1/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the groups have different claimed subject matter. The original group I Claims 1-15 concern a robot that moves/transports a tray in the wall of a cabin of a vehicle, identified in the specification as an aircraft. However, the original group II, Claims 16-18 concern a robot in a cabin with the further details of a terminal and a management server to which the robot is communicatively attached. This combination of features in Group II which includes the control system is different than that of the robot and its mechanical details by itself in Group I without the control system. This difference in features between the two groups is not trivial because the increased complexity represented by the claims having both the robot mechanical features along with the control features requires a more complex and different search than that of the claims having only the robot mechanical features. They also have different status in the art. All of these reasons show proof of serious burden. Additionally, Independent Claim 1 is proof that the features of the terminal and management server are not required for patentability as required by Claims 16-18 of Group II.
As to New Claims 19 and 20, which recite the further control features of a management server and control of the robot, these are considered to belong to Group II which has similar subject matter to the combination of the robot and control features, and are also considered to be withdrawn from examination along with Claims 16-18.
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ansar (US 2013/0199402 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ansar discloses
a robot comprising:
a rail (406, 502, 602, 704) installed on a ceiling or a side wall of a cabin (200), as illustrated in figures 2, 4, 6, 7 and 14;
a slider, i.e., construed as the driving geared wheels (604), as illustrated in figure 6 and noting the gears in figures 12-14, configured to move along the rail (406, 502, 602, 704);
a robot arm, as illustrated in figure 14, for example, having one end pivotably connected to the slider, i.e., the geared driving device and frame/superstructure; and
a tray, i.e., tray cart (1402), connected to another end of the robot arm and configured to maintain an orientation so as to be able to support an article, i.e., various food (1102), water (1104) and beverages (1106), as illustrated in figures 8, 9 and 11-14, for example.
Regarding Claim 14, Ansar discloses wherein the tray (1402) is coupled to a modular box configured to accommodate the article (1102, 1104, 1106, as illustrated in figures 8, 9 and 11-14, for example.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansar (US 2013/0199402 A1) in view of Prussmeier (US 2015/0048693 A1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 6, Ansar teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, Ansar teaches
further comprising a first driver, i.e., the motor with geared wheels (410), connected to the rail (406, 502, 602, 704) and to the slider, i.e., the geared driving device and frame/superstructure, and configured to provide a moving force to the slider, as mentioned at paragraphs 9 and 32, which state as follows.
[0009] In an embodiment of the present invention, the trolley is slidable over the railing from the first end of the airplane to the second end and from the second end of the airplane to the first end. In another embodiment, the trolley comprises: at least one locking means for locking the trolley in a desired position on the railing; and a releasing means for releasing the trolley from the locked position. The tray cart further comprises a motor and gear system for enabling sliding of the trolley over the railing, the motor and gear system being concealed within a ceiling of the airplane, the motor and gear system being controlled by controlling means provided on a side of the trolley.
[0032] FIG. 3 illustrates an average tray cart 302 in the aisle area of a typical aircraft 300. FIG. 4 illustrates a tray cart in a newly conceived space 402 and demonstrates the freeing of space in the aisle 404, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The tray cart comprises a railing 406 and a trolley 408 for carrying the refreshments required to be served in the aircraft. The trolley 408 is suspended from the railing 406 that is a load bearing structure attached to the fuselage frame of the aircraft. The railing 406 stretches the entire length from and to where the trolley is required to be taken. The suspended trolley 408 comprises geared wheels 410 which enables the trolley 408 to be rolled down the aisle with controls of locking in position and releasing for movement. The tray cart also comprises motor and the gear system for operating the geared wheels 410 which is placed above the ceiling of the aircraft and is hidden from the view from within the cabin space. In an embodiment, a console for the motor and the gear system is provided at a side of the tray cart and is easily accessible by an operating cabin crew member.
Emphasis provided.
Regarding Claim 2, Ansar does not expressly teach
wherein the first driver comprises a linear motor, and wherein one of the rail or the slider comprises a plurality of permanent magnets arranged in a longitudinal direction of the rail, and the other of the rail or the slider has a coil wound or stacked thereon.
Regarding Claim 2, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Prussmeier teaches
wherein the first driver comprises a linear motor, i.e., stator device (803) and first and second printed circuit boards (805, 807), as shown in figure 8 and as mentioned at paragraphs 56-66, and wherein one of the rail, i.e., i.e., vehicle (829), or the slider, i.e., profile element (831), comprises a plurality of permanent magnets (825, 827) arranged in a longitudinal direction of the rail (829), and the other of the rail (829) or the slider (831) has a coil, i.e., noting coil region (809), and noting multiple coils (307) as illustrated in figure 14, wound or stacked thereon, as illustrated in figures 8 and 14, for example.
Regarding Claim 2, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the first driver comprises a linear motor, and wherein one of the rail or the slider comprises a plurality of permanent magnets arranged in a longitudinal direction of the rail, and the other of the rail or the slider has a coil wound or stacked thereon, as taught by Prussmeier, in Ansar’s robot, for the purpose of enabling driving of the slider along the rail using a common induction coil based driving system.
Regarding Claim 6, Ansar does not expressly teach further comprising a connection terminal coupled to the slider and configured to electrically connect and slider to the rail so as to conduct electricity from the rail, wherein the connection terminal is electrically connected to the coil.
Regarding Claim 6, Ansar does not expressly teach further comprising a connection terminal, i.e., permanent magnets (825, 827) as illustrated in figure 8, coupled to the slider (829) and configured to electrically connect and (the) slider to the rail (831) so as to conduct electricity from the rail (831), wherein the connection terminal (825, 827) is electrically connected to the coil (809), noting also the stators (803) about which coils (809) are wound, as illustrated in figures 8 and 14, and as mentioned at paragraph 101, stating that electrical connection is formed between the magnetic field generator and the magnetic field generator, for example. See also paragraphs 115, 116 and 133, for example.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansar (US 2013/0199402 A1) in view of Prussmeier (US 2015/0048693 A1) and further in view of Cantos (US 2021/0221257 A1).
Regarding Claims 3-5, Ansar teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 3, Ansar does not expressly teach
wherein the rail forms a groove extending in a longitudinal direction of the rail, wherein the groove comprises a main groove extending in a first direction from a surface of the rail, and a separation prevention groove formed in a second direction so as to intersect with the main groove, wherein each of the main groove and the separation prevention groove extend in the longitudinal direction of the rail,
wherein the slider comprises:
a support portion having a flat shape and configured to support the robot arm, and
an insertion portion connected to the support portion at a non-straight angle and configured to be inserted into the main groove, and
wherein the insertion portion comprises a separation prevention portion configured to protrude from the insertion portion so as to be insertable into the separation prevention groove.
Regarding Claim 3, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Prussmeier teaches
wherein the rail (829) forms a groove extending in a longitudinal direction of the rail, wherein the groove comprises a main groove extending in a first direction from a surface of the rail (829), and a separation prevention groove formed in a second direction so as to intersect with the main groove, wherein each of the main groove and the separation prevention groove extend in the longitudinal direction of the rail (829),
wherein the slider (831) comprises:
a support portion having a flat shape and configured to support the robot arm, and
an insertion portion connected to the support portion at a non-straight angle and configured to be inserted into the main groove, as illustrated in annotated figure 8, as follows.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Cantos teaches
wherein the insertion portion, i.e., body (400) as illustrated in figures 5 and 6a-6c, and seat fitting (716) with body (900) as illustrated in figures 10a-10c, for example, comprises a separation prevention portion, i.e., locking stud (908) as illustrated in figures 10a-10c and as mentioned at paragraphs 62-68, configured to protrude from the insertion portion (400, 716, 900) so as to be insertable into the separation prevention groove, i.e., channel (806), as illustrated in figures 10a-10c, for example.
Regarding Claim 3, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the insertion portion comprises a separation prevention portion configured to protrude from the insertion portion so as to be insertable into the separation prevention groove, as taught by Cantos, in Ansar’s robot, for the purpose of enabling locking of the slider at a particular desired position along the rail using a common locking device designed for that purpose.
Regarding Claim 4, Ansar does not expressly teach wherein a plurality of locking grooves are formed by at least one edge of the groove so as to be disposed at intervals from each other in the longitudinal direction of the rail, and the support portion comprises: a hollow portion, a position fixing portion configured to extend out of or retract into the hollow portion, and at least one through-hole formed in one side of the support portion.
Regarding Claim 4, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Cantos teaches wherein a plurality of locking grooves, i.e., circular grooves or notches (308), as illustrated in figure 3 and as mentioned at paragraph 35, for example, are formed by at least one edge, i.e., first and second flanges (300, 302), of the groove, i.e., channel (306, 806) as illustrated in figures 3 and 10a-10c, for example, so as to be disposed at intervals from each other in the longitudinal direction of the rail, i.e., as seen in figure 3, and the support portion, i.e., the sides (406, 408) of body (400), comprises:
a hollow portion, i.e., recess (500) as illustrated in figures 5 and 6a-6c,
a position fixing portion, i.e., locking stud (416), configured to extend out of or retract into the hollow portion (500), as illustrated in figures 6a-6c, and at least one through-hole, i.e., first channel (600) formed in one side of the support portion (406, 408), as illustrated in figures 6a-6c, for example.
Regarding Claim 5, Ansar does not expressly teach wherein the position fixing portion comprises:
at least one stud,
a frame connected to the stud, and
a second driver configured to provide driving force for moving the frame, wherein the stud is configured to be inserted into one of the plurality of locking grooves via the through-hole.
Regarding Claim 5, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Cantos teaches wherein the position fixing portion comprises:
at least one stud, i.e., locking stud (416),
a frame, i.e., the structure above and to which stud (416) is attached, as illustrated in figures 6a-6c, for example, connected to the stud (416), and
a second driver, i.e., a solenoid, as mentioned in paragraphs 53 and 54, that is powered through power source (726, 1102) and controller (1202), as illustrated in figures 7, 11 and 12 and as mentioned at paragraphs 55, 64, 72 and 74, for example, configured to provide driving force for moving the frame, wherein the stud (416) is configured to be inserted into one of the plurality of locking grooves (308) via the through-hole (600).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansar (US 2013/0199402 A1) in view of Prussmeier (US 2015/0048693 A1) and further in view of Tadakuma et al (US 2023/0193986 A1).
Regarding Claims 7-10 and 13, Ansar teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 7, Ansar does not expressly teach
wherein the robot arm comprises: an active ball joint mounted on the slider; an arm having one end connected to an output shaft of the active ball joint; and a gimbal mounted on another end of the arm.
Regarding Claim 7, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Tadakuma teaches
wherein the robot arm, as mentioned at paragraph 20 and as illustrated at figure 1, comprises: an active ball joint, i.e., joint device (10), mounted on the slider, as taught by Ansar; an arm, i.e., output (12), having one end connected to an output shaft of the active ball joint; and a gimbal, i.e., interpreted as holder (20), as illustrated in figure 1, mounted on another end of the arm (12).
Regarding Claim 7, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the robot arm comprises: an active ball joint mounted on the slider; an arm having one end connected to an output shaft of the active ball joint; and a gimbal mounted on another end of the arm, as taught by Tadakuma, in Ansar’s robot, for the purpose of providing a compact differential mechanism with two degrees of freedom, as mentioned in paragraph 24 of Tadakuma, for example.
Regarding Claim 8, Ansar does not expressly teach
wherein the active ball joint comprises:
a holder fixed to the slider via a bracket and having a concave groove;
a cross spherical gear that:
is partially accommodated in the concave groove,
is supported by the holder,
comprises orthogonal teeth over a surface thereof, and
is fixed to the output shaft at one side;
a pair of monopole gears configured to engaged two sides of the cross spherical gear; and
a third driver and a fourth driver, mounted on the holder and configured to support and provide driving force to the pair of monopole gears.
Regarding Claim 8, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Tadakuma teaches
wherein the active ball joint (10) comprises:
a holder (20) fixed to the slider, as taught by Ansar, via a bracket, i.e., supporting member (11), and having a concave groove, i.e., spherical supporting portion (21), which is construed as the area between the sides of the supporting member (11) in which holder (20) and supporting member (21) holds spherical gear (30), sits as illustrated in figure 1;
a cross spherical gear (30) that:
is partially accommodated in the concave groove, as illustrated in figure 1,
is supported by the holder (20),
comprises orthogonal teeth (34), as illustrated in figures 1, 2 and 18a, for example, over a surface thereof, and
is fixed to the output shaft, i.e., represented by output (12), which is construed as being coincident with the output shaft axis, as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, for example, at one side;
a pair of monopole gears, i.e., first and second saddle gears (44, 64) as illustrated in figure 18b and as mentioned at paragraphs 45-48, 50 and 51, for example, configured to engaged (engage) two sides of the cross spherical gear (30); and
a third driver, i.e., first drive unit (40), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 45, and a fourth driver, i.e., second drive unit (60), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 44, for example, mounted on the holder (20) and configured to support and provide driving force to the pair of monopole gears (44, 64).
Regarding Claim 9, Ansar does not expressly teach
wherein the third driver and the fourth driver each comprise: a roll driving motor configured to roll a corresponding monopole gear of the pair of monopole gears, and a pitch driving motor configured to pitch the corresponding monopole gear.
Regarding Claim 9, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Tadakuma teaches
wherein the third driver (40) and the fourth driver (60) each comprise:
a roll driving motor, i.e., interpreted as the shaft rotation motor (42, 62) configured to roll a corresponding monopole gear of the pair of monopole gears (44, 64), and
a pitch driving motor, i.e., interpreted as the gear rotation motor (43, 63) configured to pitch the corresponding monopole gear (44, 64), as illustrated in figures 1, 2, 10a and 12, for example.
Regarding Claim 10, Ansar does not expressly teach
wherein the third driver and the fourth driver each further comprise: an internal rotor configured to: be rotated about a roll axis by the roll driving motor, and provide a rotational axis of the corresponding monopole gear; a differential internal worm gear comprising teeth formed in a cylinder and configured to be rotated about a roll axis by the pitch driving motor; and a differential pinion coupled to the internal rotor and configured to allow the monopole gear to rotate about the rotational axis.
Regarding Claim 10, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Tadakuma teaches
wherein the third driver (40) and the fourth driver (60) each further comprise:
an internal rotor, i.e., represented by second worm driven gear (63b) configured to:
be rotated about a roll axis by the roll driving motor (42, 62), and
provide a rotational axis of the corresponding monopole gear (44, 64), as illustrated in figures 4 and 13, noting roll axis (r);
a differential internal worm gear (80) comprising teeth (81) formed in a cylinder and configured to be rotated about a roll axis (r), as illustrated in figure 4, for example, by the pitch driving motor (43, 63); and a differential pinion, i.e., bevel gear (101), as illustrated in figure 11c, for example, coupled to the internal rotor (63b) and configured to allow the monopole gear (44, 64) to rotate about the rotational axis (r).
Regarding Claim 13, Ansar does not expressly teach
further comprising a connection terminal coupled to the slider and configured to contact the rail and to conduct electricity from the rail, wherein the connection terminal is electrically connected to at least one of the active ball joint, the arm, or the gimbal.
Regarding Claim 13, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Prussmeier teaches
further comprising a connection terminal, i.e., in the form of the interface between the coils (307, 809), the printed circuit boards (303, 805, 807) and the stators (803), for example, coupled to the slider (829) and configured to contact the rail (831) and to conduct electricity from the rail (831), wherein the connection terminal is electrically connected to at least one of the active ball joint, the arm, or the gimbal, as taught by Tadakuma, i.e., via the structural components of either the rail and/or the slider. See the rejection of Claims 3 and 7, above.
Note that it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have reversed the rail or the slider as to which has the contact and which has the connection terminal. Additionally note that it can be construed that both the slider and the rail each have contacts and both elements contact each other so as to effectuate movement via magnetic induction.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansar (US 2013/0199402 A1) in view of Prussmeier (US 2015/0048693 A1), further in view of Tadakuma et al (US 2021/0221257 A1) and further in view of Volek (WO 00/46100 A2).
Regarding Claim 11, Ansar teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 11, Ansar does not expressly teach
wherein the arm comprises an electric linear actuator equipped with an operating rod.
Regarding Claim 11, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Volek teaches
wherein the arm, i.e., telescopic post (26), as illustrated in figure 2, for example, comprises an electric linear actuator, i.e., drive (30), mentioned at p. 5, fifth paragraph, as being an electric drive, which is considered to imply and suggest that it is equipped with an operating rod.
Regarding Claim 11, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the arm comprises an electric linear actuator equipped with an operating rod, as taught by Vadek, in Ansar’s robot, for the purpose of providing a linear motion and telescoping action to the arm.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansar (US 2013/0199402 A1) in view of Prussmeier (US 2015/0048693 A1), further in view of Tadakuma et al (US 2021/0221257 A1), further in view of Volek (WO 00/46100 A2) and further in view of Matsuo (US 2009/0329424 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ansar teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 12, Ansar does not expressly teach
wherein the gimbal comprises:
a first fixing portion fixed to an end portion of the operating rod;
a fifth driver connected to the first fixing portion and to a second fixing portion and configured to rotate the second fixing portion with respect to the first fixing portion; a sixth driver connected to the second fixing portion and to a third fixing portion and configured to rotate the third fixing portion with respect to the second fixing portion; and
a seventh driver connected to the third fixing portion and to a fourth fixing portion and configured to rotate the fourth fixing portion with respect to the third fixing portion, wherein the fourth fixing portion is fixedly connected to the tray.
Regarding Claim 12, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Matsuo teaches
wherein the gimbal, i.e., robot (1), as illustrated in figure 1, comprises:
a first fixing portion, i.e., base part (1a), fixed to an end portion of the operating rod, i.e., interpreted as the floor (9);
a fifth driver, i.e., the non-illustrated motor such as that which turns part (1b) as mentioned at paragraph 36, for example, and as illustrated in figure 1, connected to the first fixing portion (1a) and to a second fixing portion (1b) and configured to rotate the second fixing portion (1b) with respect to the first fixing portion (1a);
a sixth driver, i.e., the non-illustrated as mentioned at paragraph 36, connected to the second fixing portion (1b) and to a third fixing portion (1c) and configured to rotate the third fixing portion (1c) with respect to the second fixing portion (1b); and
a seventh driver, i.e., the non-illustrated as mentioned at paragraph 36, connected to the third fixing portion (1c) and to a fourth fixing portion, i.e., connection jig (4), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, and configured to rotate the fourth fixing portion (4) with respect to the third fixing portion (1c), wherein the fourth fixing portion (4) is fixedly connected to the tray, i.e., connection object (5), as illustrated in figure 1 and as mentioned at paragraphs 38 and 39, for example. Note also that paragraph 36 mentions that the robot (1) may be a 5, 6 or 7 axis robot which suggests that the addition of further drivers and fixing portions is considered a matter of design choice based upon the degree of freedom required to perform a particular task.
Regarding Claim 12, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the gimbal comprises:
a first fixing portion fixed to an end portion of the operating rod;
a fifth driver connected to the first fixing portion and to a second fixing portion and configured to rotate the second fixing portion with respect to the first fixing portion;
a sixth driver connected to the second fixing portion and to a third fixing portion and configured to rotate the third fixing portion with respect to the second fixing portion; and
a seventh driver connected to the third fixing portion and to a fourth fixing portion and configured to rotate the fourth fixing portion with respect to the third fixing portion,
wherein the fourth fixing portion is fixedly connected to the tray, as taught by Matsuo, in Ansar’s robot, for the purpose of providing sufficient degrees of freedom to enable movement of the gimbal at the end of the robot arm.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ansar (US 2013/0199402 A1) in view of Kurtenbach (US 2006/0076261 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Ansar teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 15, Ansar does not expressly teach
wherein at least one insertion groove is formed on one of a lower surface of the tray or an upper surface of the modular box, and at least one protrusion corresponding to the insertion groove is formed on the other of the lower surface of the tray or the upper surface of the modular box.
Regarding Claim 15, Ansar does not expressly teach, but Kurtenbach teaches
wherein at least one insertion groove, i.e., left and right channels (46, 48) as illustrated in figure 1, is formed on one of a lower surface of the tray (10, 12) or an upper surface of the modular box, (10, 12), and at least one protrusion, i.e., tracks (34, 36) corresponding to the insertion groove (46, 48) is formed on the other of the lower surface of the tray (10, 12) or the upper surface of the modular box (10, 12).
Regarding Claim 15, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein at least one insertion groove is formed on one of a lower surface of the tray or an upper surface of the modular box, and at least one protrusion corresponding to the insertion groove is formed on the other of the lower surface of the tray or the upper surface of the modular box, as taught by Kurtenbach, in Ansar’s robot, for the purpose of providing a robust removable connection between the tray and the modular box.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dowd ‘969 is cited as teaching a further example of a rail (24) with grooves (32a, 32b), as illustrated in figure 1, for example.
Bishop ‘094 is cited as teaching a rail (20) with grooves (24) and with an automatic device (50, 52) that locks a slider (30) from moving along the rail by deploying the lock (52).
Franksson ‘907 is cited as teaching a linear actuator (1() with motor (2) with rods (22, 25, 30) that are caused to telescope by planetary gearing (41) powered by six gearboxes each with one of six gearboxes (16), as illustrated in figure 2, for example.
Inagaki ‘334 is cited as teaching another robot (10) with driving devices (35-37, 40, 50 and 55-57), one for each of first, second and third arm joints as well as the rotary three axis mechanism (50), as illustrated in figures 1-3, for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights