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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of this document has been placed in the file wrapper. As such, the effective filing date of the instant application is considered 06/20/2022, coinciding with the filing date of the Italian Republic application to which foreign priority was requested.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 9, and 13 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented 12/05/2025 have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant first contends that the signals are transmitted wirelessly, which is not disclosed by Thunell, however Examiner has already presented a wireless communication teaching reference from a similar field of endeavor that would have been obvious to use alongside Thunell to include wireless benefits known in the art.
Applicant then argues that the passive circuit of Thunell does not allow the creation of a safety signal in the second module that is located in the tool unit 3. Examiner contends that the location of each control module is a mere design choice and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Applicant finally contends that Thunell does not disclose changing the state of a digital port to a new state, but provides no further warrant to counter the previously presented mapping, and Examiner finds this argument unconvincing and points to the mapping presented in the previous action and again below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thunell et al. (US20200368920, referred to as Thunell) in view of P T M PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK GMBH (DE202015105137U1, referred to as PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK).
Regarding claim 1: Thunell discloses: Safety control apparatus for a tool changing device of a robotic arm, ([0009] The tool changer comprises a master unit, comprising a safety controller comprising at least two separate processing circuitries, a coupler and at least two coupling sensors.) said apparatus being configured to allow the decoupling or the coupling between robotic arm and tool safely, the robotic arm and tool being respectively connected to a robot adapter and a tool adapter, the safety control apparatus comprising: ([0009] The tool changer also comprises a tool unit, comprising at least one tool unit sensor that detects if the tool unit is located in a tool stand, the at least one tool unit sensor provides two output signals and the output signals are sent to the safety controller when the tool unit is coupled to the master unit. The coupler being movable between a coupled state in which the tool unit is coupled to the master unit, the coupler comprises at least two valves and wherein the coupler is moved from the coupled state to the decoupled state when both valves are actuated, and the at least two coupling sensors individually detect if the tool unit is coupled to the master unit by means of the coupler and the output signals from the coupling sensors are sent to the safety controller.) a first module associated with the robotic arm and arranged on the robot adapter, a second module associated with the tool and arranged on the tool adapter, ([0082] The safety controller 21 here includes two modules, the communication module 211 and the safety module 212. The communication module may also be an integral part of the safety module 212. The safety module includes all safety related parts for the interlocking functions as described above and below, while the communication module is used for the signal interfacing with the robot controller.) means associated with a tool parking station adapted to prevent or allow the creation of at least one safety signal (S, Saut, UID, PR) in said second module, said second module being configured to [wirelessly] transmit said at least one safety signal to the first module, ([0082] The safety module includes all safety related parts for the interlocking functions as described above and below, while the communication module is used for the signal interfacing with the robot controller. Such interfacing may be done via an I/O module or Bus Module. The exemplary system has two valves 241, 242 of double NO/NC monostable 3/2 type, which in their passive, i.e. stable state, will keep the tool changer 1 closed. Due to the redundancy of the system, both valves must be actuated to open the tool changer. The valve control signals are referenced to as “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” in this document. [0083] The safety module includes two separate processing circuitries 22, 23 for “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” which are working independently for the logic control and which are implemented with different programmable technologies. To detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, two coupling sensors 25, 26 are used in parallel. One coupling sensor 25 is using a normally closed switch “TC_Empty”, giving a high signal to detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, and another coupling sensor 26 is using a jumper “TA_Coupled”, via the tool unit 3 to detect if a tool is attached to the tool changer 1. The “TC_Empty” and “TA_Coupled” signals combined are referenced to as the “TA_Present” signal in this document. In this example, an inductive proximity sensor 25 is used for “TC_Empty” and an electric jumper connection 26 is used for “TA_Coupled”. However, any mechanical or electrical or proximity sensor may be used.) said first module being configured to allow the decoupling or the coupling between robotic arm and tool in response to the reception of said at least one safety signal. ([0022] the two processing circuitries will, independently from each other, determine whether both coupling sensors indicate that the tool unit is coupled to the master unit, determine whether both channels from the tool unit sensors indicate that the tool unit is in the tool stand, and determine if the other processing circuitry reaches the same conclusions and send a decouple signal when decoupling is allowed and has been requested. [0085] Since both signals, “Open TC1” and “Open TC2”, must be active to decouple, i.e. to open the tool changer 1, a fault in either circuit will prevent the tool changer 1 to open in dangerous situations. Furthermore, the results from both processing circuitries must be equal for the outputs to be set active. For controlling the opening and closing of the tool changer, a signal from the robot controller is used to alert the safety controller 21 that an opening is ordered. Depending on the configuration of the communication module, this signal could be sent in different ways, e.g. via bus or via discrete signals, but is referred to as “DoOpenTC”.)
Thunell does not explicitly disclose the following limitations: wireless
Thunell does not disclose the following limitations, however PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK, from an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: wireless ([0016] In the present case, an electrical coupling is understood to mean, for example, a signal transmission or the production thereof with a command for triggering a corresponding function. In the context of the present invention, an electrical coupling is understood to mean an electrical data connection which can be established both in a wired and wireless manner.)
Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robot end effector/tool change processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the tool change modules of Thunell to enable the wireless signal processing described in PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the tool changing method of Thunell with a common signal processing method described in PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK for benefits of wireless transmission well known in the art.
Regarding claim 2: Thunell discloses: The apparatus according to claim 1,
Thunell further discloses: characterized in that said at least said second module comprises data storage means and ([0071] The receiving a request is according to some aspects received from a robot controller. The receiving the output from the sensors is according to some aspects received via direct wiring to the sensors in the master unit. The determining whether the tool unit is coupled to the master unit is according to some aspects done by comparing the sensor output data to stored data which indicates which output data values are indicative of a coupled tool unit and which output data values are indicative of a decoupled tool unit. Determining whether the tool unit is in the tool stand using the sensor output from the tool unit sensor can be done in the same way. The processing circuitries may have access to internal memory storing such values for comparison or they may have access to a memory unit in the safety controller. The sending and receiving the results of the determinations is done by physical wiring between the processing circuitries.) at least one digital port adapted to assume an initial state, said means associated with a tool parking station being adapted to change the initial state of said at least one digital port to a new state different from the initial state, said new state of said at least one digital port being stored in said storage means and said at least one safety signal comprising said new state of said at least one digital port. ([0082] The safety module includes all safety related parts for the interlocking functions as described above and below, while the communication module is used for the signal interfacing with the robot controller. Such interfacing may be done via an I/O module or Bus Module. The exemplary system has two valves 241, 242 of double NO/NC monostable 3/2 type, which in their passive, i.e. stable state, will keep the tool changer 1 closed. Due to the redundancy of the system, both valves must be actuated to open the tool changer. The valve control signals are referenced to as “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” in this document. [0083] The safety module includes two separate processing circuitries 22, 23 for “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” which are working independently for the logic control and which are implemented with different programmable technologies. To detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, two coupling sensors 25, 26 are used in parallel. One coupling sensor 25 is using a normally closed switch “TC_Empty”, giving a high signal to detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, and another coupling sensor 26 is using a jumper “TA_Coupled”, via the tool unit 3 to detect if a tool is attached to the tool changer 1. The “TC_Empty” and “TA_Coupled” signals combined are referenced to as the “TA_Present” signal in this document. In this example, an inductive proximity sensor 25 is used for “TC_Empty” and an electric jumper connection 26 is used for “TA_Coupled”. However, any mechanical or electrical or proximity sensor may be used. [0085] Since both signals, “Open TC1” and “Open TC2”, must be active to decouple, i.e. to open the tool changer 1, a fault in either circuit will prevent the tool changer 1 to open in dangerous situations. Furthermore, the results from both processing circuitries must be equal for the outputs to be set active. For controlling the opening and closing of the tool changer, a signal from the robot controller is used to alert the safety controller 21 that an opening is ordered. Depending on the configuration of the communication module, this signal could be sent in different ways, e.g. via bus or via discrete signals, but is referred to as “DoOpenTC”)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 2,
Thunell further discloses: wherein said at least one safety signal comprises a safety code (Saut) in the form of a numerical or alphanumeric string stored in said storage means. ([0087] A “TC_Open_Ready” signal from the safety controller 21 to the robot controller 6 is produced in the same manner as the “OK_To_Run” signal, but gives the status of whether the tool changer is in a coupled or decoupled position.)
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1,
Thunell further discloses: further comprising a control circuit associated with said first module, said control circuit comprising a memory in which said at least one safety signal is stored, said control circuit being configured to carry out an operation of verifying the match of said at least one safety signal (S) coming from said second module and received from the first module with the at least one safety signal present in said memory of said control circuit and being configured to allow the decoupling or the coupling between robotic arm and tool after carrying out said verification operation and if said verification operation is positive. ([0082] The safety module includes all safety related parts for the interlocking functions as described above and below, while the communication module is used for the signal interfacing with the robot controller. Such interfacing may be done via an I/O module or Bus Module. The exemplary system has two valves 241, 242 of double NO/NC monostable 3/2 type, which in their passive, i.e. stable state, will keep the tool changer 1 closed. Due to the redundancy of the system, both valves must be actuated to open the tool changer. The valve control signals are referenced to as “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” in this document. [0083] The safety module includes two separate processing circuitries 22, 23 for “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” which are working independently for the logic control and which are implemented with different programmable technologies. To detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, two coupling sensors 25, 26 are used in parallel. One coupling sensor 25 is using a normally closed switch “TC_Empty”, giving a high signal to detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, and another coupling sensor 26 is using a jumper “TA_Coupled”, via the tool unit 3 to detect if a tool is attached to the tool changer 1. The “TC_Empty” and “TA_Coupled” signals combined are referenced to as the “TA_Present” signal in this document. In this example, an inductive proximity sensor 25 is used for “TC_Empty” and an electric jumper connection 26 is used for “TA_Coupled”. However, any mechanical or electrical or proximity sensor may be used. [0085] Since both signals, “Open TC1” and “Open TC2”, must be active to decouple, i.e. to open the tool changer 1, a fault in either circuit will prevent the tool changer 1 to open in dangerous situations. Furthermore, the results from both processing circuitries must be equal for the outputs to be set active. For controlling the opening and closing of the tool changer, a signal from the robot controller is used to alert the safety controller 21 that an opening is ordered. Depending on the configuration of the communication module, this signal could be sent in different ways, e.g. via bus or via discrete signals, but is referred to as “DoOpenTC”)
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1,
Thunell further discloses: wherein said means associated with the parking station comprise a magnetic actuator and said second module comprises a magnetic sensor activatable by said magnetic actuator. ([0040] a tool changer 1 normally comprises a master unit 2 and a tool unit 3, where the master unit 2 is mounted on the robot arm with a coupling device 24, i.e. coupler, to couple the tool unit 3 with a tool 5 mounted on it.)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1,
Thunell further discloses: wherein said means associated with the parking station comprise an electrical circuit, said at least one digital port of said second module being electrically connectable to said electrical circuit associated with the parking station. ([0082] The safety module includes all safety related parts for the interlocking functions as described above and below, while the communication module is used for the signal interfacing with the robot controller. Such interfacing may be done via an I/O module or Bus Module. The exemplary system has two valves 241, 242 of double NO/NC monostable 3/2 type, which in their passive, i.e. stable state, will keep the tool changer 1 closed. Due to the redundancy of the system, both valves must be actuated to open the tool changer. The valve control signals are referenced to as “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” in this document. [0083] The safety module includes two separate processing circuitries 22, 23 for “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” which are working independently for the logic control and which are implemented with different programmable technologies. To detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, two coupling sensors 25, 26 are used in parallel. One coupling sensor 25 is using a normally closed switch “TC_Empty”, giving a high signal to detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, and another coupling sensor 26 is using a jumper “TA_Coupled”, via the tool unit 3 to detect if a tool is attached to the tool changer 1. The “TC_Empty” and “TA_Coupled” signals combined are referenced to as the “TA_Present” signal in this document. In this example, an inductive proximity sensor 25 is used for “TC_Empty” and an electric jumper connection 26 is used for “TA_Coupled”. However, any mechanical or electrical or proximity sensor may be used. [0085] Since both signals, “Open TC1” and “Open TC2”, must be active to decouple, i.e. to open the tool changer 1, a fault in either circuit will prevent the tool changer 1 to open in dangerous situations. Furthermore, the results from both processing circuitries must be equal for the outputs to be set active. For controlling the opening and closing of the tool changer, a signal from the robot controller is used to alert the safety controller 21 that an opening is ordered. Depending on the configuration of the communication module, this signal could be sent in different ways, e.g. via bus or via discrete signals, but is referred to as “DoOpenTC”)
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 8,
Thunell further discloses: wherein said second module is configured to electrically supply (Vout) said electrical circuit associated with the parking station once connected to it. ([0023] According to some aspects, the at least one tool unit sensor comprises two 24V power connections that are activated by a passive circuit in the tool stand and is fed from the tool unit to the safety module when the tool unit is in the tool stand and when the tool unit is coupled to the master unit.)
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 7,
Thunell further discloses: wherein said magnetic sensor comprises at least one electrical switch commanded by said magnetic actuator and the at least one digital port of said second module is electrically connected to the at least one electrical switch of said magnetic sensor, said at least one digital port being configured to change its state once said magnetic sensor is activated by said magnetic actuator associated with the parking station. ([0029] According to some aspects, the mechanical switch comprises a normally closed switch, giving a high signal when the tool unit is decoupled from the master unit, the electrical contact comprises a jumper connected via the tool unit to give a high signal when the tool unit is coupled to the master unit and the proximity sensors comprise inductive, magnetic, capacitive, optical and RFID sensors.)
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 10,
Thunell further discloses: wherein said second module is configured to electrically supply the electric contacts of said magnetic sensor. ([0059] According to some aspects, the different types of sensors are selected from the following types: mechanical switches, electrical contacts and proximity sensors. Such types of sensors may provide stable and robust sensors with reliable output. According to some aspects, the mechanical switch comprises a normally closed switch, giving a high signal when the tool unit 3 is decoupled from the master unit 2, the electrical contact comprises a jumper connected via the tool unit 3 to give a high signal when the tool unit 3 is coupled to the master unit 2 and the proximity sensors comprise inductive, magnetic, capacitive, optical and RFID sensors. Choosing different technologies will give higher safety ratings. A jumper is both reliable and cheap. Inductive sensors are reliable and have good MTTF-value, Mean Time To Failure-value, than e.g. mechanical sensors.)
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1,
Thunell further discloses: wherein said means associated with the parking station comprise an electrical circuit and said second module comprises at least one microprocessor electrically connectable to said electrical circuit associated with the parking station, said second module being configured to electrically supply said microprocessor and said electrical circuit associated with the parking station once connected to it. ([0057] the coupler 24 is configured to move to a decoupled state when the at least two separate processing circuitries 22, 23 both send a decouple signal to decouple the tool unit 3 and the decouple signal is a signal sent from the two processing circuitries 22, 23 to a valve each. The two valves are, for example, of double NO/NC monostable 3/2 type. A single monostable valve or single bistable valve may be used, however not with the same degree of safety as with using double monostable valves. Other factors, such as cost, may affect the choice of valve. [0058] The at least two coupling sensors 25, 26 individually detects if the tool unit 3 is coupled to the master unit 2 by means of the coupler 24. The output signals from the coupling sensors 25, 26 are sent to the safety controller 21. [0059] According to some aspects, the different types of sensors are selected from the following types: mechanical switches, electrical contacts and proximity sensors. Such types of sensors may provide stable and robust sensors with reliable output. According to some aspects, the mechanical switch comprises a normally closed switch, giving a high signal when the tool unit 3 is decoupled from the master unit 2, the electrical contact comprises a jumper connected via the tool unit 3 to give a high signal when the tool unit 3 is coupled to the master unit 2 and the proximity sensors comprise inductive, magnetic, capacitive, optical and RFID sensors. Choosing different technologies will give higher safety ratings. A jumper is both reliable and cheap. Inductive sensors are reliable and have good MTTF-value, Mean Time To Failure-value, than e.g. mechanical sensors.)
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 1,
Thunell further discloses: wherein said first module comprises an RFID reader (104) and said second module comprises at least one RFID chip. ([0085] To detect if the tool changer 1 with tool 5 is positioned in the tool stand 4, double “Tool_in_stand” output signals 32, 33 are used, shown in the FIG. 3 as Toolin_Stand_1 and Tool_In_Stand_2. In this example an RFID sensor is used, which is a passive circuit 41 in the tool stand, but any proximity sensor may be used. Both processing circuitries 22, 23 are using the two “TA_Present” signals and the two “Tool_in_stand” signals. Since both signals, “Open TC1” and “Open TC2”, must be active to decouple, i.e. to open the tool changer 1, a fault in either circuit will prevent the tool changer 1 to open in dangerous situations. Furthermore, the results from both processing circuitries must be equal for the outputs to be set active. For controlling the opening and closing of the tool changer, a signal from the robot controller is used to alert the safety controller 21 that an opening is ordered. Depending on the configuration of the communication module, this signal could be sent in different ways, e.g. via bus or via discrete signals, but is referred to as “DoOpenTC”)
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches, and Thunell further teaches: A tool changing device for a robotic arm comprising a safety control apparatus defined as in claim 1. ([0040] a tool changer 1 normally comprises a master unit 2 and a tool unit 3, where the master unit 2 is mounted on the robot arm with a coupling device 24, i.e. coupler, to couple the tool unit 3 with a tool 5 mounted on it. [0041] In this disclosure, the master unit 2 is equipped with an integral safety controller 21 to safely interlock a decouple request from the controller, which is schematically illustrated in FIG. 2)
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The device according to claim 14,
Thunell further discloses: further comprising a robot adapter adapted to be connected with said robotic arm and a tool adapter adapted to be connected with said tool, ([0040] a tool changer 1 normally comprises a master unit 2 and a tool unit 3, where the master unit 2 is mounted on the robot arm with a coupling device 24, i.e. coupler, to couple the tool unit 3 with a tool 5 mounted on it. [0041] In this disclosure, the master unit 2 is equipped with an integral safety controller 21 to safely interlock a decouple request from the controller, which is schematically illustrated in FIG. 2) said first module being arranged in said robot adapter and said second module being arranged in said tool adapter. ([0082] FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary system with a tool changer according to some aspects of the disclosure. The tool unit 3 is shown below the master unit 2 in the coupled position. The safety controller 21 here includes two modules, the communication module 211 and the safety module 212. The communication module may also be an integral part of the safety module 212. The safety module includes all safety related parts for the interlocking functions as described above and below, while the communication module is used for the signal interfacing with the robot controller. Such interfacing may be done via an I/O module or Bus Module. [0040] a tool changer 1 normally comprises a master unit 2 and a tool unit 3, where the master unit 2 is mounted on the robot arm with a coupling device 24, i.e. coupler, to couple the tool unit 3 with a tool 5 mounted on it. [0041] In this disclosure, the master unit 2 is equipped with an integral safety controller 21 to safely interlock a decouple request from the controller, which is schematically illustrated in FIG. 2)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thunell et al. (US20200368920, referred to as Thunell) in view of P T M PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK GMBH (DE202015105137U1, referred to as PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK) and further in view of Mueller et al. (DE2106790C2, referred to as Mueller).
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK teaches: The apparatus according to claim 3,
Thunell does not explicitly disclose: [wherein said storage means of said second module are configured to store at least one code (PR) with progressive number assigned to the tool], said at least one safety signal (S) transmittable from said second module to said first module [[wirelessly] comprising said at least one code with progressive number assigned to the tool.] ([0082] The safety module includes all safety related parts for the interlocking functions as described above and below, while the communication module is used for the signal interfacing with the robot controller. Such interfacing may be done via an I/O module or Bus Module. The exemplary system has two valves 241, 242 of double NO/NC monostable 3/2 type, which in their passive, i.e. stable state, will keep the tool changer 1 closed. Due to the redundancy of the system, both valves must be actuated to open the tool changer. The valve control signals are referenced to as “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” in this document. [0083] The safety module includes two separate processing circuitries 22, 23 for “Open TC1” and “Open TC2” which are working independently for the logic control and which are implemented with different programmable technologies. To detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, two coupling sensors 25, 26 are used in parallel. One coupling sensor 25 is using a normally closed switch “TC_Empty”, giving a high signal to detect if the tool changer 1 is empty, and another coupling sensor 26 is using a jumper “TA_Coupled”, via the tool unit 3 to detect if a tool is attached to the tool changer 1. The “TC_Empty” and “TA_Coupled” signals combined are referenced to as the “TA_Present” signal in this document. In this example, an inductive proximity sensor 25 is used for “TC_Empty” and an electric jumper connection 26 is used for “TA_Coupled”. However, any mechanical or electrical or proximity sensor may be used.)
Thunell does not explicitly disclose the following limitations: wireless
Thunell does not disclose the following limitations, however PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK, from an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: wireless ([0016] In the present case, an electrical coupling is understood to mean, for example, a signal transmission or the production thereof with a command for triggering a corresponding function. In the context of the present invention, an electrical coupling is understood to mean an electrical data connection which can be established both in a wired and wireless manner.)
Thunell and PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robot end effector/tool change processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the tool change modules of Thunell to enable the wireless signal processing described in PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the tool changing method of Thunell with a common signal processing method described in PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK for benefits of wireless transmission well known in the art.
Thunell does not disclose the following limitations, however Mueller, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches: wherein said storage means of said second module are configured to store at least one code (PR) with progressive number assigned to the tool; [wirelessly] comprising said at least one code with progressive number assigned to the tool. ([0013] The tool change process takes place as follows. A tool with the identifier Z is requested from the machine tool control (not shown) (arrow 20). This command is sent by the control unit 6 to a coincidence stage 8. At the same time, the individual identifications Z1 to Z n are read out one after the other with the aid of the core memory buffer 4 and rewritten again by means of the clocks of the control unit 6 (arrow 7). The identification read in each case is compared via the buffer memory 5 with the identification Z p requested by the control in the coincidence element 8.)
As previously stated, Thunell and Mueller are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robot end effector/tool change processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the tool change modules of Thunell to enable the progressive tool numbering assigned to individual tools.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the tool changing method of Thunell with the progressive tool numbering of Mueller for the process of tool selection processing improvement.
Regarding claim 5: Thunell discloses: The apparatus according to claim 3,
Thunell further discloses: wherein said at least one code (PR) with progressive number assigned to the tool is entered into said storage means by a user via an external communication module. ([0004] In the known control system, the memory, which is provided with the corresponding marking for the tool location and tool number, runs synchronously with the tool memory and controls the changing process.
34 When a tool is removed from the tool memory, the freed-up space in the memory is deleted and
the identifier of the tool returned to the memory is used instead)
Thunell, PRÄZISIONSTECHNIK, and Mueller are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robot end effector/tool change processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the tool change modules of Thunell to enable the progressive tool numbering assigned to individual tools.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the tool changing method of Thunell with the progressive tool numbering of Mueller for the process of tool selection processing improvement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/ /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A
Prosecution Insights