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 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 1 – 5 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 1 recites the limitation “an arm main body configured such that a gripping position of a tool is symmetrical about a central rotary shaft” in the first paragraph of the body of the claim. It is generally unclear as to how a “gripping position” of a tool can be “symmetrical about” a ‘central rotary shaft.’ Examiner further notes that neither the tool nor the ‘central rotary shaft’ as positively required features of the claimed ‘tool exchanging arm’ and the ‘arm main body.’ Therefore, it is further unclear as to how the ‘arm main body’ can be “configured” such that a ‘gripping position of the tool,’ which is not part of the ‘tool exchanging arm,’ is symmetrically about the ‘central rotary shaft,’ which is also not part of the ‘tool exchanging arm.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “an arm main body configured such that an axis of a tool to be attached to the tool exchanging arm has an axis parallel with an axis of the arm main body.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “both end portions of the arm main body” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “both end portions” in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “opposing end portions of the arm main body.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein an intermediate portion ... comes into contact with an entering side portion of the tool and is pressed by rotation of the arm main body” in the last paragraph. The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require that the ‘intermediate portion’ is in contact with the ‘entering side portion of the tool,’ such that the ‘tool’ is a positively required element of the claimed ‘tool exchanging arm,’ or whether Applicant intends the ‘intermediate portion’ to be configure to come into contact with the ‘entering side portion of the tool.’ Secondly, Examiner notes that the preamble is directed towards ‘a tool exchanging arm.’ Therefore, regarding “pressed by rotation of the arm main body, it is further unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively recite a step of ‘rotating the arm main body to cause a pressing of the intermediate portion, such that the claim is directed towards a ‘method of operating a tool exchanging arm,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘intermediate portion,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘tool exchanging arm’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein an intermediate portion ... is configured to come into contact with an entering side portion of the tool and is further configured to be pressed by a rotation of the arm main body.”
Claim 1 further recites the “the movable claw pivots via the first connecting member ...” Examiner notes that the preamble is directed towards ‘a tool exchanging arm.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘pivoting the movable claw via the first connecting member ...,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a tool exchanging arm,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘movable claw,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘tool exchanging arm’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the movable claw is configured to pivot via the first connecting member ...”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the fixed claw.” Examiner notes that the claim previously sets forth two ‘fixed claws,’ one on each ‘end portion’ of the arm main body (second paragraph of claim 1). Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to one or each of the ‘fixed claws.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “one of the fixed claws.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the second connecting member has a shape bent toward a side of the tool.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the second connecting member have a bent shape toward ‘a side of the tool,’ such that the ‘tool’ is a positively required element of the claimed ‘tool exchanging arm,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘second connecting member.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the second connecting member has a shape which is configured for use with the tool.”
As to claim 4, as explained previously, it is generally unclear as to whether Applicant intends the claim to positively require the ‘entering side portion of the tool to come into contact with the intermediate portion of the second connecting member,’ such that the tool is a positively required element of the claimed ‘tool exchanging arm,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘second connecting member’ and the ‘arm main body.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the claim such that the claim recites functional language of the ‘second connecting member’ and the ‘arm main body.’
Claim 5 recites the limitation “in the lock mechanism, a slide member is pivotally attached to a side opposite to the first connecting member with respect to the movable claw by a loosely fitted connecting pin.” The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Secondly, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the ‘lock mechanism’ to comprise the ‘slide member,’ or whether Applicant intends the ‘slide member’ to be housed within the ‘lock mechanism.’ Next, it is unclear as to Applicant intends regarding “a side opposite to the first connecting member with respect to the movable claw.’ Finally, Examiner notes that “loosely fitted” is a term of degree which is not expressly defined by the Specification. Therefore, the metes and bounds of ‘loose’ is unclear. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the lock mechanism comprises a slide member that is pivotally attached to a proximate end portion the movable claw by a connecting pin, wherein the proximate end portion is opposite the distal end portion of the movable claw.” Examiner will further interpret claim 5 to depend upon claim 2, which sets for a “lock mechanism,” rather than claim 1.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “a lock pin urged by a locking spring is fitted into the positioning hole by a closing operation of the movable claw, thereby form a locked state.” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards a ‘tool exchanging arm.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘a lock spring urging a locking pin fitted into a positioning hole by a closing operation of the moving claw to form a locked state,’ such that the claim is directed towards a ‘method of operating a tool exchanging arm,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth functional language of the ‘lock pin’ and ‘locking spring,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘tool exchanging arm’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the lock mechanism further comprises a lock pin and a locking spring, wherein the lock pin and locking spring are configured such that the lock pin is urged by the locking spring into a positioning hole by a closing operation of the movable claw.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae (U.S. Patent Number 5,620,406) teaches a tool exchanging arm (abstract) comprising: an arm main body configured such that an axis of a tool to be attached to the tool exchanging arm has an axis parallel with an axis of the arm main body (figures 1 and 4, element 34 being the ‘tool exchanging arm,’ element 36 being the ‘arm main body,’ and element 104 being the ‘tool,’ see below; column 3, lines 15 - 17)
PNG
media_image1.png
949
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bae further teaches a fixed claw formed an opposing end portions of the arm main body (figures 1, 4, and 5b, right element 40 and one of element 38 being the ‘fixed claws’; column 3, lines 15 – 18); a movable claw pivotably supported on the arm main body (figures 1, 4, and 5b, left element 40 being the ‘movable claw’; column 4, lines 15 – 18); a first connecting member having a first end pivotally attached to a distal end portion of the movable claw (figure 5b, element 52 being the ‘first connecting member,’ top end of element 52 being the ‘first end of the first connecting member,’ and lower portion of left element 40 being the ‘distal end portion of the movable claw’; column 3, lines 20 – 24); and a second connecting member having a first end pivotally attached to a second end of the first connecting member and a second end pivotally supported on the arm main body (figures 4 and 5b, element 44 being the ‘second connecting member,’ top end of element 44 being the ‘first end of the second connecting member,’ and the lower end of element 52 being the ‘second end of the first connecting member’; column 3, lines 20 – 30). Examiner notes that the second end of the second connecting member is pivotally supported on the arm main body because Bae teaches that the second end of the second connecting member is connected to the arm main body via a link, which Bae expressly teaches is pivotally connected to the arm main body (figures 4 and 5b, element 68 being the ‘link,’ column 3, lines 25 – 30). Bae further teaches that an intermediate portion of the second connecting member is configured to come into contact with an entering side portion of the tool and is further configured to be pressed by a rotation of the arm main body (figures 4 and 5b, top middle portion of element 44 being the ‘intermediate portion of the second connecting member’). Examiner notes that this can be found because the tool exchanging arm of Bae may be used with a tool which is shaped so as to come into contact with the intermediate portion of the second connecting member.’ Bae further teaches that the movable claw is configured to pivot via the first connecting member pivotally attached to the second connecting member to grip the tool together with one of the fixed claws (figures 4 and 5b, elements 40, 52 and 44; column 3, lines 15 – 30).
As to claim 2, Bae further teaches a spring member configured to urge the movable claw in a direction of an opening operation (figure 1, element 108 being the ‘spring member’). Examiner notes that this can be found because Bae teaches that the spring member is used in the operation of urging the movable claw in a direction of an opening operation (figure 1, element 108; column 3, line 48 – column 4, line 25). Bae further teaches a lock mechanism configured to maintain a closed state of the movable claw (figures 4 and 5b, element 68 being the ‘lock mechanism’; column 4, lines 1 – 8). Examiner notes that this can be found because Bae teaches that the movable claw moves based on a movement of the lock mechanism. Therefore, when the lock mechanism does not move, the movable claw maintains the movable claw in a closed state.
As to claim 3, Bae teaches that the second connecting member has a shape which is configured for use with the tool (figures 4 and 5b, element 44).
As to claim 4, the second connecting member and the arm main body are configured so as to allow the entering side portion of the tool to come into contact with the intermediate portion of the second connecting member by the rotation of the arm main body , which corresponds to a remaining rotation angle of 1˚ before a stopping position of the arm main body (figures 1, 4, and 5b, elements 36 and 44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (claims 1 and 2).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 5, Bae does not teach ‘the lock mechanism comprising a slide member that is pivotally attached to a proximate end portion the movable claw by a connecting pin, wherein the proximate end portion is opposite the distal end portion of the movable claw, and the lock mechanism further comprising a lock pin and a locking spring, wherein the lock pin and locking spring are configured such that the lock pin is urged by the locking spring into a positioning hole by a closing operation of the movable claw.’
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726