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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 December 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
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 rail (orig. para. [0016], “rail (not shown)”) 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the colon (line 4) should be removed. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Menon et al. (US 2020/0095001) (“Menon”).
Claim 1: a workpiece transfer device (at least 108) that transfers a workpiece (inside at least 114 in FIG. 1);
a robot (116);
a rail on which the robot is placed (120);
a robot moving device that includes a rail on which the robot along the rail (118/120); and,
a system controller (122) comprising a processor configured to function (“a system controller comprising a processor configured to function” to do X is similar to “controller for doing Y”; therefore, only a system controller has to be disclosed in the prior art, not necessarily doing X) such that while the workpiece is being transferred by the workpiece transfer device, the robot moving device moves the robot along the rail and the robot performs an operation while following the workpiece,
wherein the processor functions to:
determine whether a position of the workpiece relative to the robot has exceeded an operable range in which the robot is capable of performing work on the workpiece while the robot is moving along the rail to follow the workpiece;
and perform, in a case of determining that the position of the workpiece relative to the robot has exceeded the operable range, position compensation by controlling at least one of driving of the workpiece transfer device or driving of the robot moving device such that the position of the workpiece relative to the robot becomes within the operable range (“a system controller comprising a processor configured to function” to do X is similar to “controller for doing Y”; therefore, only a system controller has to be disclosed in the prior art, not necessarily doing X; alternatively, para. [0052] of Menon may disclose this, i.e., Menon is capable of doing this; also, para. [0043] allows system controller 122 to alert operator 128 to move 116/118 to complete a task; para. [0031], “In various embodiments, a motor, belt, chain, or other source of motive force is applied via a controller (not shown in FIG. 1) to move the carriage 118 and attached robotic arm 116 along the rail or guide 120 to facilitate the automated retrieval of items from the kitting machines 102, 104, and 106 and the placement of items in boxes 112, 114 as they are moved along conveyor 108.”; para. [0033], “In the example shown, operation of one or more of the kitting machines 102, 104, and 106; conveyor 108; box assembly machine 110; and robotic arm 116 and/or carriage 118 are operated in a coordinated manner under the control of control computer 122.”);
Claim 2: wherein the system controller functions to perform the position compensation by moving at least one of the workpiece transfer device or the robot moving device by a prescribed distance (“a system controller comprising a processor configured to function” to do X is similar to “controller for doing Y”; therefore, only a system controller has to be disclosed in the prior art, not necessarily doing X; alternatively, move 116/118 in position relative to 108/102/etc.; para. [0052]; alternatively, para. [0052] of Menon may disclose this, i.e., Menon is capable of doing this; also, para. [0043] allows system controller 122 to alert operator 128 to move 116/118 to complete a task in a prescribed distance that is prescribed by 128/etc.);
Claim 3: wherein the system controller functions to perform the position compensation by changing at least one of a speed of the workpiece transfer device or a speed of the robot moving device (“a system controller configured to function” to do X is similar to “controller for doing Y”; therefore, only a system controller has to be disclosed in the prior art, not necessarily doing X; alternatively, move 116/118 in velocity relative to 108/102/etc.; para. [0052]; alternatively, para. [0052] of Menon may disclose this, i.e., Menon is capable of doing this; also, para. [0043] allows system controller 122 to alert operator 128 to move 116/118 to complete a task in a speed that is prescribed by 128/etc.; para. [0038]-[0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. the drawings, the Dr1-Dr2 directions are not objected to; the rail that is not shown is objected to since it is not shown in the drawings.
Re. the “stopped” structures of pp. 3-5, see at least para. [0031] of Menon, “In various embodiments, a motor, belt, chain, or other source of motive force is applied via a controller (not shown in FIG. 1) to move the carriage 118 and attached robotic arm 116 along the rail or guide 120 to facilitate the automated retrieval of items from the kitting machines 102, 104, and 106 and the placement of items in boxes 112, 114 as they are moved along conveyor 108.” Also see para. [0033], “In the example shown, operation of one or more of the kitting machines 102, 104, and 106; conveyor 108; box assembly machine 110; and robotic arm 116 and/or carriage 118 are operated in a coordinated manner under the control of control computer 122.”
Re. the range and DOF, see para. [0052] of Menon that may disclose this, i.e., Menon is capable of doing this. Also, para. [0043] allows system controller 122 to alert operator 128 to move 116/118 to complete a task.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 2, filed 7 January 2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of the previous Office action have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652