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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is referring to elements by numbers. The filed abstract needs to remove all indicated element numbers.
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
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Halstead (U.S. Patent No. 6,772,932).
Regarding claim 1: Halstead discloses a work cell (10), comprising a support frame (Fig. 1; via the shown frames 20, 22, 24, 44) inside which at least one working plane (via 40) is made on which the objects to be worked are positioned and at least one automatic operator device (Fig. 2; via robot assembly 50) configured to perform the workings on said objects, characterized in that said frame comprises a guide (via 23) located at a certain height above said working plane (via 40) and said automatic operator device (via 50) comprises a support (via 52) sliding along said guide (23) and associated with at least one drive device (inherently robotic device 50 linked to some type of drive device to get it moving), configured to translate said support (via 52) and therefore said automatic operator device (robotic 50) along said guide (along guide 23) and therefore along said working plane (along 40).
Regarding claim 2: the automatic operator device (via 50) is an anthropomorphic robot with six axes and six degrees of freedom and said guide, see for example (Figs. 2-3; via the shown multiple axes and degrees of freedom of robotic system 50 and along guide 23) represents a seventh axis along which said automatic operator device moves.
Regarding claim 3: it comprises one or more control units (operating elements such as motors, sensors, controllers”) cooperating with said automatic operator device (50) and with said drive device and associated with a control panel (Fig. 1; via 60) of the work cell (via “to permit the robot base 52 to move from side to side within the enclosed workspace 30 of the welding station 10. Such movement may be manually or computer-controlled”).
Regarding claim 4: said working plane (via 40) comprises at least one pair of work benches (Figs. 1-4; via pair of tables 42) disposed side by side or at a certain distance from each other along said work cell (10).
Regarding claim 6: one or more front and/or one or more lateral doors (Figs. 1-2; via walls 12, 14, and 16 and windows 32) for accessing said working plane (work space30), which is delimited by front and lateral walls which are recessed with respect to said front and/or lateral doors (via windows 32) in the closed position.
Regarding claim 7: the lateral doors (16) comprise a substantially horizontal portion, see for example (Fig. 10; via the shown horizontal portion out of wall 16) which, when said lateral doors are closed, aligns with said working plane (intended use limitations of the lateral doors).
Regarding claim 8: the working plane (via 40) comprises a work surface equipped with through holes (Fig. 1; via the shown holes placed on top surface of table 42) in fluid communication with one or more tanks positioned under the working plane (inherently the shown holes on table 42 are for vacuuming to hold strongly of the articles in surface 40; further those are intended use limitations of the claimed working plane).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halstead (U.S. Patent No. 6,772,932) in view of Roy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0054175).
Regarding claim 5: Halstead does not disclose a mobile bulkhead. However, Roy discloses similar cell with the use of bulkhead, see for example (Figs. 3-5; via 12/13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Halstead’s cell by having a bulkhead, as suggested by Roy, in order to increase safety, efficiencies, and customer satisfaction (paragraphs 0006-0007).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halstead (U.S. Patent No. 6,772,932).
Regarding claim 9: Halsted does not disclose the claimed one or more outlets made in said tanks and connectable to a suction system for the working fluids collected therein. However, the office takes an official notice that a use of vacuum holes in a surface for the purpose of holding and gripping firmly into articles while having those holes connectable to suction system with tanks for the working fluids collected therein is very old and well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Halstead’s cell by having a suction system for the working fluids collected therein, in order to have stronger gripping force of the article against the working surface.
Regarding claim 10: Halsted does not disclose a through apertures interspersed with said through holes and each having a passage section greater than the passage section of each of said through holes. However, as Halsted disclosed through holes (Fig. 1; via the shown holes in surface 40 of table 42), coming up with a further aperture interspersed with the shown holes with a passage section greater than the passage section of each of the holes, would be nothing more than a matter of engineering design choice to be made.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Halstead’s surface with through holes, by having a further aperture interspersed with the other holes with different passage section, as a matter of design choice, in order to improve and gain stronger gripping of the placed articles in the working surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731