DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 “plurality of different product manufacturing machines” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16-18, 20-29, 32-34 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.
Claims 16 and 21 respectively recite “the mobile vehicle moves the robots to each of the plurality of different product manufacturing machines and the fixing device detachably directly connects the mobile vehicle to each of the different product manufacturing machines,” which is unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). It is not clear whether Applicant is claiming a method of using the apparatus or merely reciting functional language.1 The limitations are not examined as structural limitations in accordance with MPEP 2114(II).2
The remaining claims inherit the deficiencies of Claims 16 and 21 by nature of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 16-18, 20-29, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sportelli (BR 102014030617), in view of Yosuke (JP-H07308877), as evidenced by NPL (Bowling Green Daily News) and Baker et al. (WO 2023/076726).
The combination is summarized as follows:
Sportelli discloses the general structure of a product manufacturing machine equipped with a plurality of start buttons (7), as detailed below, but discloses that a human operator (8) simultaneously presses the two start buttons (7) and therefore cannot be said to disclose the claimed robot operating device adapted to simultaneously press the plurality of start buttons to start the product manufacturing machine; and the claimed fixing device adapted to fix the mobile vehicle to the product manufacturing machine to prevent the mobile vehicle from being moved relative to the product manufacturing machine during the manufacturing of the product, the fixing device including a connecting device detachably directly connecting the mobile vehicle to the product manufacturing machine.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, NPL evidences that it is old and well-known in the art to use a finger-like appendage on a robot arm to press a start button to activate a manufacturing device (“[a] tiny, finger-looking appendage on the robot arm even reaches over to push the start button on a laser beam”, NPL); and Baker evidences that it is old and well-known in the art to program separate robotic arms (202, 206) to simultaneously interact with, e.g. touch/press, an object (figs. 2A-2B).
Yosuke teaches a robot operating device, as detailed below, which provides the advantages that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect of a robotic system, to include autonomy, increased precision/accuracy, and/or computerized control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing, as evidenced by NPL and Baker, to replace the human operator in Sportelli’s system with a robot operating device as taught by Yosuke, in order to simultaneously press Sportelli’s start buttons with the expected benefit of providing autonomy, increased precision/accuracy, computerized control, and/or reduced costs (e.g., wages).
Lastly, although Sportelli does not explicitly disclose a plurality of different product manufacturing machines, as claimed, the recitation of multiple product manufacturing machines, as claimed, describes structure that is merely redundant to that already found in the prior art, especially where the function of the robot operating device is unchanged by the presence or absence of the multiplicity of product manufacturing machines; and an ordinary artisan familiar with the art would already expect a production environment, such as that of the context of Sportelli’s invention, to have multiple product manufacturing machines. Duplicating the product manufacturing machine of the prior art produces no new and unexpected result; and it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance.3
Regarding the claims, the combination, as motivated above, suggests the following (mapping to Yosuke unless otherwise noted):
16. A product manufacturing system, comprising: a plurality of different product manufacturing machines (Sportelli) for manufacturing a plurality of different products; and a robot operating device (Yosuke), including: a mobile (via 28) vehicle (3); a guide rail (4) installed on the mobile vehicle (2, 3); a plurality of robots (1) slidably installed on the guide rail (4) and movable along the guide rail (e.g., fig. 10), the plurality of robots (1) adapted to collaborate with each other and to manipulate any one of the plurality of different a product manufacturing machine (the prior art meets the claimed functional limitation, as combined, insomuch as a mobile robotic device is expected to be mobile) to manufacture the different products through the different product manufacturing machine, wherein the robot operating device (Yosuke) and the different product manufacturing machines (Sportelli) are separately controlled, such that there is no communication or exchange of control information between the different product manufacturing machine and the robot operating device (as combined); and a fixing device (per the disclosure, pallet bases 20 are attached to 2, i.e. by an undisclosed mechanism, and the means of attaching the pallet bases 20 is considered to meet the instant limitation insomuch as the undisclosed mechanism is conventional) adapted to fix the mobile vehicle (2, 3) to each of the different product manufacturing machines (Sportelli) to prevent the mobile vehicle (2, 3) from being moved relative to each of the different product manufacturing machines (Sportelli) during the manufacturing of the different products, the mobile vehicle moves the robots to each of the plurality of different product manufacturing machines (the structure is mobile and therefore capable of the claimed functional limitation) and the fixing device (means of fixing 20 to 3) detachably directly connects (i.e., the structure of Yosuke is capable of performing the functional limitation) the mobile vehicle (2, 3) to each of the different product manufacturing machines (Sportelli).
The remaining claims are substantially similar to limitations which have been previously mapped and are of record, and are therefore omitted for brevity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The thrust of Applicant’s arguments are that the prior art of Sportelli discloses a single product manufacturing machine and therefore does not disclose multiple product manufacturing machines, as claimed. This is not persuasive.
First, it is unclear if Applicant is claiming a method of using a device, or a device (see clarity rejections above). Second, the instant figures do not show multiple product manufacturing machines, so the prior art is considered to meet the claimed limitation insomuch as instant figure 2 shows a product manufacturing machine 10. Third, even if the claim were to require multiple product manufacturing machines (which does not appear to be supported by the instant figures, as noted in the drawing objections above), the robot operating device only interacts with a single product manufacturing machine at a time, and the interaction between a single product manufacturing machine and the robot operating device is therefore met by the combination; and further, the robot of the combination is designed to be mobile, and therefore clearly capable of moving to different machines. Thereafter, the recitation of multiple product manufacturing machines, as claimed, is structure that is merely redundant to that already found in the prior art, especially where the robot operating device functionality is unchanged by the presence or absence of the multiple product manufacturing machines; and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 See Ex parte Johnston, Appeal No. 2009-004993, 2010 WL 3948080 (B.P.A.I., Sept. 30, 2010).
2 MPEP 2114(II): “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was “for mixing flowing developer material” and the body of the claim recited “means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material.” The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
3 MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B): In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).