DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed June 23, 2025 for the above identified patent application.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake (JP 2006-110641) in view of Nishida (JP 10-6366).
Otake teaches a robot arm (91) that has, at both ends of a cylindrical arm body, mounting interface portions (94,95) for mounting the robot arm to another member. Otake does not teach the claimed method for making the robot arm.
The prior art to Nishida teaches a manufacturing method for making hollow bodies, the method comprising: molding a first part (4) that has a mounting interface portion (10) and a section of the arm body (pipe portion 2) in a longitudinal axis direction thereof, and of which at least a section of an outer surface is formed of a resin (see description at [0022] and elsewhere); molding a second part (5) that has a mounting interface portion (10’) and a section of the arm body (pipe portion 2) in a longitudinal axis direction thereof, and of which at least a section of an outer surface is formed of a resin (see description at [0022] and elsewhere); and joining the molded first part and the molded second part to each other in a positioned state, wherein the first part and the second part are fixed in a same forming mold (30,40) in a positioned state and then integrally joined so as to form a final shape of the robot arm (Fig. 8), wherein the first part and second part for formed by injection molding resin (see description at [0022] and elsewhere).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to make the arm of Otake with the forming methods disclosed by Nishida, motivation being to form a lightweight hollow member having a predetermined strength for a particular robotic device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the method of making the pipe portion 2 of Nishida would not form the claimed invention. Unlike the present invention, Nishida teaches the first and second pipe split elements 4,5 is formed along the entire length of the longitudinal axis direction of the pipe portion 2. Applicant argues the first and second pipe split elements 4,5, of the Nishida patent do not correspond to the first and second parts recited in claim 1.
It is acknowledged that the cylindrical arm body of Nishida is formed by two components 4,5, joined together along a joining line 6. However, the claims fail to clearly distinguish from the pipe member of Nishida, such as defining the “first part” as having a section of the arm body formed as a circular pipe, or the “second part” having a section of the arm body formed as a circular pipe. Accordingly, the claims fail to distinguish over the prior art.
In view of the amendment, Nishida teaches the first part having a section of the arm body 4 in a longitudinal axis, and a second part having a section of the arm body 5 in a longitudinal axis.
In view of the foregoing, the claims are properly rejected in view of the robot arm of Otake made with the method steps taught by Nishida.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 3, the prior art does not teach a robot arm formed by the methods of molding a first part, molding a second part, molding a third cylindrical part, disposing the third part between the molded first and second parts, then joining the parts to one another in a positional state, wherein the first, second and third parts are formed by injection molding or press molding. The final rejection (mailed 2/3/25) based on Pierrot et al. (CN 101977737) modified with Pazdirek et al. (USP 6,398,446) does not teach disposing the third part between the molded first and second parts prior to joining the parts to one another in a positional state, or forming the third part by injection molding or press molding. With respect to claim 5, the prior art does not teach disposing the third part between the molded first part and the molded second part prior to joining them together a positioned state; wherein the first part, the second part, and the third part are fixed in a same forming mold in a positioned state and are then integrally joined so as to form a final shape of the robot arm. Accordingly, the claims are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618