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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 9-13, 18, and 19-20 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.
The term “substantially equal” in claims 9, 18, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially equal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is recited in the context of the frequency variation blocks collectively having an area substantially equal to an area of the frequency variation groove. However, claims 9, 18, and 19 each require that the frequency variation blocks be arranged in a tessellation. Paragraph [0035] states “As used herein “arranged in a tessellation” (or similar language) may refer to covering a surface (e.g., the frequency variation groove 112) using one or more geometric shapes (e.g., the frequency variation blocks) with no overlaps and no gaps in a non-repeating or a repeating manner. The frequency variation blocks may make contact with each other.” Since the blocks are required to be arranged in a tessellation, and there are no gaps per the definition of “tessellation”, it is unclear how the areas are substantially equal rather than equal (or exactly equal), and therefore it is unclear how the term “substantially equal” differs from “equal”. The examiner notes for the area of the blocks to not be exactly equal, there would have to be some gaps (or possibly overlaps) so that there is a different between the areas.
The term “substantially equal” in claims 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially equal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is recited in the context of an area of the central block being substantially equal to an area of each of the side blocks. It is unclear how much different between the areas is allowed while still being substantially equal.
Claim 11 recites “wherein an area of the central block is substantially equal to an area of each of the side blocks”. It is unclear whether it is being claimed that the area of the central block is substantially [sic] equal to the combined area of all the side blocks, or whether it is being claimed that the area of the central block is equal to the individual area of each side block alone. For the purpose of further examination on the merits it is assumed that the former is meant (i.e. combined area of all side blocks is substantially [sic] equal to the area of the central block.).
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claims 10 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially perpendicular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much the angles in question can be from 90 degrees and still be considered substantially perpendicular. For example, would a block that is trapezoidal with and angles of 89 degrees and 91 degrees have side surfaces that are substantially perpendicular?
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)(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.
(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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tan (US2013/0213169).
Tan discloses:
Re claim 1. A robot blade (306) comprising:
a blade body that includes a frequency variation groove (groove seen at 532 in Fig. 5B); and
a frequency variator (424) configured to be detachably (para. [0039]) arranged in the frequency variation groove to vary a frequency of the blade body.
Re claim 2. wherein the frequency variation groove is at an upper surface (See Fig. 4, 5B) of the blade body.
Re claim 3. wherein the frequency variation groove (at central 524 as seen in Fig. 5B) is positioned at a central portion of the upper surface of the blade body.
Re claim 4. wherein the frequency variation groove is offset (groove seen at tip 532 in Fig. 5B) from a central portion of the upper surface of the blade body.
Re claim 5. wherein the frequency variation groove has a rectangular shape (See at 532 in Fig. 5B).
Re claim 6. wherein the frequency variation groove has a uniform depth (See at 532 in Fig. 5B).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choy (US6,758,113).
Choy discloses:
Re claim 1. A robot blade comprising:
a blade body (1; See Figs. 1, 2) that includes a frequency variation groove (8); and
a frequency variator (9) configured to be detachably arranged in the frequency variation groove (8) to vary a frequency of the blade body (C3/L5-21 - damping of vibrations is a varying a frequenc(ies)).
Re claim 14. A robot blade comprising:
a blade body (1) that includes a rectangular (See Fig. 2. Sidewalls of the groove have rectangular shapes) frequency variation groove (8) at an upper surface of the blade body (See Figs. 1 & 2); and
a plurality of frequency variation blocks (9) configured to be detachably arranged in the frequency variation groove to vary a frequency of the blade body (C3/L5-21 - damping of vibrations is a varying a frequenc(ies)).
Re claim 2. wherein the frequency variation groove (8) is at an upper surface of the blade body (See Figs. 1, 2).
Re claims 3 and 15. wherein the frequency variation groove (8) is positioned at a central portion of the upper surface of the blade body (See Figs. 1& 2, groove 8 is centered along longitudinal axis of 1).
Re claims 4 and 16. wherein the frequency variation groove is offset from a central portion of the upper surface of the blade body (see Figs. 1 & 2, groove 8 is offset along the longitudinal axis of blade body 1 near a tip of the blade body 1).
Re claim 5. wherein the frequency variation groove has a rectangular shape (See Fig. 2. Sidewalls of the groove have rectangular shapes.).
Re claim 6. wherein the frequency variation groove (8) has a uniform depth (See Fig. 2).
Re claim 7. wherein the frequency variator comprises a plurality of frequency variation blocks (9; See C3/L7-8 - “plurality of damping particles 9”) configured to be selectively (C3/L5-21 - “The filling ratio may be chosen depending on the speed of movement of the bond arm, higher speeds would require lower filling ratios so as to ensure that sufficient movement of the particles is possible to effectively damp the vibrations.”) arranged in the frequency variation groove (8).
Claim(s) 1-9 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nguyen (US7.724,479).
Re claim 1. A robot blade (52) comprising:
a blade body (52) that includes a frequency variation groove (52 Notch); and
a frequency variator (52I, 52M) configured to be detachably arranged in the frequency variation groove to vary a frequency of the blade body (C1/L45-53).
Re claim 14. A robot blade (52) comprising:
a blade body (52) that includes a rectangular frequency variation groove (52 Notch) at an upper surface (located at both upper and lower surfaces) of the blade body; and
a plurality of frequency variation blocks (52I, 52M) configured to be detachably arranged in the frequency variation groove (52 Notch) to vary a frequency of the blade body(C1/L45-53).
Re claim 2. wherein the frequency variation groove (52 Notch) is at an upper surface (located at both upper and lower surfaces) of the blade body.
Re claims 3 and 15. wherein the frequency variation groove is positioned at a central portion (centered on a longitudinal axis of 52) of the upper surface of the blade body.
Re claims 4 and 16. wherein the frequency variation groove is offset (at least a portion of the groove is not centered along the longitudinal axis of 52) from a central portion of the upper surface of the blade body.
Re claim 5. wherein the frequency variation groove has a rectangular shape (The straight sides of the frequency variation groove (52 Notch) have rectangular shapes).
Re claim 6. wherein the frequency variation groove has a uniform depth (see Figs. 1A-1D).
Re claim 7. wherein the frequency variator comprises a plurality of frequency variation blocks (52I, 52M) configured to be selectively arranged in the frequency variation groove.
Re claims 8 and 17. wherein the frequency variation blocks are configured to be arranged in a tessellation (52I and 52M fill the entire groove (52 Notch) without overlapping or leaving gaps, per the definition of “tessellation” in the instant application.).
Re claims 9 and 18. wherein the frequency variation blocks collectively have an area substantially equal to an area of the frequency variation groove (Since 52I and 52M fill the entire groove (52 Notch), they cover an entire cross-sectional area of the groove).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 10-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Paragraph [0035] of the instant application states “As used herein “arranged in a tessellation” (or similar language) may refer to covering a surface (e.g., the frequency variation groove 112) using one or more geometric shapes (e.g., the frequency variation blocks) with no overlaps and no gaps in a non-repeating or a repeating manner. The frequency variation blocks may make contact with each other.”
In regards to claims 10 and 19, the closest prior art is Nguyen (US7.724,479, relied upon above). Nguyen discloses frequency variation blocks (52I, 52M) arranged in a tessellation (as defined by the instant application in paragraph [0035]) in a frequency variation groove (52 Notch). Nguyen further discloses the frequency variation blocks comprise a central block (52I). However, Nguyen does not disclose the additional combination of a plurality of side blocks a plurality of side blocks having first side surfaces configured to contact first side surfaces of the central block, respectively; and a pair of edge blocks configured to contact second side surfaces of the central block, respectively, and second side surfaces of the side blocks, respectively, wherein the second side surfaces of the central block are substantially perpendicular to the first side surfaces of the central block, and the second side surfaces of the side blocks are substantially perpendicular to the first side surfaces of the side blocks, in combination with all other claim limitations.
There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to modify the closest prior art of Nguyen to have all of the missing claim limitations, in combination with all other claim limitations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Another close prior art is Choy (US6,758,113, relied upon above). In regards to claims 8 and 19 (and therefore in regards to claims 10 and 19 which are dependent upon 8 and 19, respectively), Choy does not disclose and teaches away from the frequency variation blocks (9) being configured to be arranged in a tessellation, as the term is defined by the Applicant in the instant application. In Choy, the frequency variation blocks fill the frequency variation groove (8) in a manner in which many are piled onto of each other. Thus, the frequency variation blocks of Choy overlap and therefore are not arranged in a tessellation, as the term is defined in the instant application. Furthermore, while the frequency variation blocks (damping particles 9) are disclosed as not necessarily being spherical (C3/L18), the particles are not disclosed as being forms such as cubes that will cover a surface with no gaps (e.g. spheres of similar sized placed next to each other compactly will still have space between them).
There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to modify the close prior art of Choy to have all of the missing claim limitations, in combination with all other claim limitations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LoPiccolo (US2017/0173799) discloses a self-damping end effector that has a damping groove (125a and cantilevered portion (124a) and explicitly discusses the natural frequency of the damper (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights