DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This action is in response to the U.S. filing dated 17 March 2023 which is a national stage entry of PCT/IB2021/058573, dated 21 September 2021, which claims a foreign priority date of 22 September 2020. A preliminary amendment was submitted on 17 March 2023. Claim 11 is amended. Claims 13-15 have been added. No claims have cancelled. Claims 1-15 remain pending and have been considered below
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 March 2023 has been received, entered into the record, and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claims Interpreted as Invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/Sixth Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Celico Fadini et al. (US 2020/0340878 A1, hereinafter: C-F) in view of Wallgren (US 2016/0195868 A1) and further in view of Zucker (US 2021/0393337 A1).
As for independent claim 1, C-F teaches a method comprising:
providing a test device (10) equipped with a plurality of screwdriver test heads (21) and a control unit (24) for controlling the test heads (21) so as to perform screwdriver tests [(e.g. see C-F paragraphs 0005, 0012, 0022 and Fig. 1) ”FIG. 1 shows an overview scheme of a test bench for verifying industrial screwdrivers … The driving program, once an operator has selected the brake to be used for testing the screwdriver, is able to progressively increase the braking capacity of the brakes by adjusting the pressure, until reaching a complete stop of the electronic screwdriver … The hydraulic distributor D comprises a number of solenoid valves E1 . . . En corresponding to the number of braking devices present F1 . . . Fn. The electronic processing unit programs the electronic board that enables exclusively the valve associated with the brake selected for the test. Thereby, the hydraulic power flows from the manifold only to the braking device involved in the test”].
introducing the test device (10) into the robotic station in place of an object normally handled in the station [(e.g. see C-F paragraphs 0002, 0020) ”the operator has selected the brake to be used for testing the screwdriver A … Such screwdrivers are tested on test benches, like the one illustrated in FIG. 1, which comprises a plurality of hydraulic brakes F1-Fn, with which the screwdriver is associated”].
and starting a test cycle of the screwdrivers in the station which results in the robotic station coupling the screwdrivers together with corresponding heads of the test device and performing tightening cycles on the test heads [(e.g. see C-F paragraphs 0007, 0020, 0023) ”The driving program, once the operator has selected the brake to be used for testing the screwdriver A, is able to modulate the braking capacity of the brakes by adjusting the pressure, until reaching a complete stop of the electronic screwdriver … the pressure is adjusted individually for each brake, thus carrying out a dedicated control on each of them … using a given number of standard test braking actions that serve to generate the right pressure ramp to which there corresponds a braking action simulating a tightening operation of the screwdriver to be tested”].
C-F does not specifically teach testing automatic screwdrivers (12) performing the tightening of elements (18) of an object (17) normally handled in the robotic station (11). However, in the same field of invention, Wallgren teaches:
testing automatic screwdrivers (12) performing the tightening of elements (18) of an object (17) normally handled in the robotic station (11) [(e.g. see Wallgren paragraph 0010) ”an assembly station for an object to be assembled and a system for determining the actual position of a power tool 12 used for the assembly work within the area. Although the assembly line illustrated in the drawing shows three objects travelling through the assembly station the following description of the system will be related to just one of those objects, namely the object identified by the numeral 10. The same assembly process, though, will be applied on all of the objects successively passing through the assembly station, namely the application of the power tool 12 on a number of critical points 11a,b on the object 10. In the illustrated example the power tool 12 is a power wrench, and the critical points 11a,b on the object 10 comprise screw joints to be tightened by the power wrench 12”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of C-F and Wallgren, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add testing automatic screwdrivers (12) performing the tightening of elements (18) of an object (17) normally handled in the robotic station (11), as taught by Wallgren, to the teachings of C-F because it allows the quality of the object to be acceptable, approved and guaranteed (e.g. see Wallgren paragraph 0015).
C-F and Wallgren do not specifically teach in a robotic station (11). However, in the same field of invention, Zucker teaches:
in a robotic station (11) [(e.g. see Zucker paragraphs 0044, 0045, 0048) ”The robot 140 may comprise a base that supports a robotic arm configured to hold the power tool 132. The robot 140 may comprise one or more robotic arms, each of which may be configured to hold a power tool such as the power tool 132 … The power tool 132 may be a power drill, power screwdriver, or any other device that generates torque for the purpose of accomplishing mechanical work … The power tool 132 comprises a torque sensor 136 and a communication interface 138. In some embodiments, the torque sensor 136 and the communication interface 138 may comprise a single device within or otherwise secured to the power tool 132. The torque sensor 136 may be configured to measure one or more torque characteristics during use of the power tool 132 for a given drilling, tapping, screw insertion, or other procedure, such as peak torque, accumulated torque, and/or root mean square, or “RMS,” torque”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of C-F, Wallgren and Zucker, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add in a robotic station (11), as taught by Zucker, to the teachings of C-F and Wallgren because it allows for autonomous operation without any human input (e.g. see Zucker paragraph 0002).
As for dependent claim 2, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the method as described in claim 1, but C-F does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Wallgren teaches:
characterized in that the test device (10) is made to enter into and exit from the station by means of a transport system (15) which is the same system designed to perform the entry into and exit from the station of the objects normally handled in the station [(e.g. see Wallgren paragraph 0017 and Fig. 1 numeral 20) ”In an assembly line application, as the one illustrated in the drawing, the object 10 is carried on a travelling support 20, and the power tool position locating system also comprises a signal sender unit 22 attached to the object 10 being assembled, wherein the receivers 14,15 pick up signals also from that sender unit 22. In this case the system for determining the position of the power tool is able to take into account the successively changing position of the object 10 and the critical points 11a,b to be worked by the power tool 12 and to determine the position of the power tool 12 in relation to these points 11a,b”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 3, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the method as described in claim 2, but C-F does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Wallgren teaches:
characterized in that the test device (10), in order to enter into and exit from the station, is equipped with a transport frame (16) similar to a transport frame used for the entry into or exit from the station of an object normally handled in the station [(e.g. see Wallgren paragraph 0010 and Fig. 1 numeral 10) ”Although the assembly line illustrated in the drawing shows three objects travelling through the assembly station the following description of the system will be related to just one of those objects, namely the object identified by the numeral 10. The same assembly process, though, will be applied on all of the objects successively passing through the assembly station, namely the application of the power tool 12 on a number of critical points 11a,b on the object 10”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 4, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the method as described in claim 1 and C-F further teaches:
characterized in that the control unit (24) of the test device receives or includes in a memory (27) test parameters to be applied to the test heads depending on the station in which the test device is introduced [(e.g. see C-F paragraphs 0019, 0020, 0022, 0023) ”A computer that communicates with such board comprises a suitable driving program stored thereon … The driving program, once the operator has selected the brake to be used for testing the screwdriver A, is able to modulate the braking capacity of the brakes by adjusting the pressure, until reaching a complete stop of the electronic screwdriver … The hydraulic distributor D comprises a number of solenoid valves E1 . . . En corresponding to the number of braking devices present F1 . . . Fn. The electronic processing unit programs the electronic board that enables exclusively the valve associated with the brake selected for the test. Thereby, the hydraulic power flows from the manifold only to the braking device involved in the test … the pressure is adjusted individually for each brake, thus carrying out a dedicated control on each of them”].
As for dependent claim 5, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the method as described in claim 1 and C-F further teaches:
so as to set the test heads (12) for testing the screwdrivers of this station [(e.g. C-F paragraphs 0007, 0022, 0023) ” The hydraulic distributor D comprises a number of solenoid valves E1 . . . En corresponding to the number of braking devices present F1 . . . Fn. The electronic processing unit programs the electronic board that enables exclusively the valve associated with the brake selected for the test. Thereby, the hydraulic power flows from the manifold only to the braking device involved in the test … the pressure is adjusted individually for each brake, thus carrying out a dedicated control on each of them … using a given number of standard test braking actions that serve to generate the right pressure ramp to which there corresponds a braking action simulating a tightening operation of the screwdriver to be tested”].
C-F does not specifically teach characterized in the that the control unit (24) of the test device (10) is equipped with means (28) for recognizing the station into which it enters. However, Wallgren teaches:
characterized in the that the control unit (24) of the test device (10) is equipped with means (28) for recognizing the station into which it enters [(e.g. see Wallgren paragraphs 0010, 0011) ”the system is situated in a local area and comprises a power tool 12 provided with a sender unit 13 arranged to emit localization signals, two receivers 14,15 located in the local area and intended to receive the signals from the sender unit 13, and a processing unit 18 arranged to calculate and monitor the position … As illustrated in the drawing the local area includes an assembly station for an object to be assembled and a system for determining the actual position of a power tool 12 used for the assembly work within the area. Although the assembly line illustrated in the drawing shows three objects travelling through the assembly station the following description of the system will be related to just one of those objects, namely the object identified by the numeral 10. The same assembly process, though, will be applied on all of the objects successively passing through the assembly station, namely the application of the power tool 12 on a number of critical points 11a,b on the object 10”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
As for dependent claim 6, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the method as described in claim 1 and C-F further teaches:
characterized in that, upon entry of the test device (10) in a station, the station is set to perform a test cycle with the test heads (12) of the test device [(e.g. see C-F paragraphs 0005-0008, 0012, 0022 and Fig. 1) ”FIG. 1 shows an overview scheme of a test bench for verifying industrial screwdrivers … The driving program, once an operator has selected the brake to be used for testing the screwdriver, is able to progressively increase the braking capacity of the brakes by adjusting the pressure, until reaching a complete stop of the electronic screwdriver … The hydraulic distributor D comprises a number of solenoid valves E1 . . . En corresponding to the number of braking devices present F1 . . . Fn. The electronic processing unit programs the electronic board that enables exclusively the valve associated with the brake selected for the test. Thereby, the hydraulic power flows from the manifold only to the braking device involved in the test … using a given number of standard test braking actions that serve to generate the right pressure ramp to which there corresponds a braking action simulating a tightening operation of the screwdriver to be tested … The test braking actions are used for successive corrections to generate a torque/angle curve corresponding to the joint to be simulated”].
As for independent claim 7, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach a device. Claim 7 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 1 and 3. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 1 and 3.
As for dependent claim 8, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the device as described in claim 7; further, claim 8 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 4.
As for dependent claim 9, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the device as described in claim 7; further, claim 9 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 5.
As for dependent claim 10, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the device as described in claim 7; further, claim 10 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 2 and 3. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 2 and 3.
As for independent claim 11, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach an apparatus. Claim 7 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 1 and 7. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 1 and 7.
As for dependent claim 12, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the apparatus as described in claim 11; further, claim 12 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 4.
As for dependent claim 13, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the apparatus as described in claim 11; further, claim 13 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 4.
As for dependent claim 14, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the apparatus as described in claim 11; further, claim 14 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 5.
As for dependent claim 15, C-F, Wallgren and Zucker teach the apparatus as described in claim 11; further, claim 15 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 2 and 3. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 2 and 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2016/0342151 A1 issued to Dey et al. on 24 November 2016. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-15 (e.g. adjusting and testing the parameters of power tools).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174