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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08-06-2026 has been entered.
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 1-13 and 16-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the detection surface" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as --the deflection surface--.
Claim 10 recites “a first longitudinal end of the carriage” in line 2. Claim 1 already recites this limitation in line 4. It is unclear if claim 10 intends to refer back to the first longitudinal end of the carriage of claim 1, or to introduce a new limitation. For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 10 will be interpreted to refer back to the equivalent limitation of claim 1. Examiner recommends amending claim 10 to recite --the first longitudinal end of the carriage--. Claims 11-12 are rejected by their dependence on claim 10.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 10-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanella ‘105 (US 2009/0173105 A1) in view of Chen ‘986 (CN 112622986 A – English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein) and Meier ‘715 (US 2020/0361715 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zanella ‘105 teaches:
a rail (rail 5, Fig. 2)
a carriage moveable along the rail (structure mounted on rail 5, Fig. 2; ¶ [0074])
the carriage includes a first obstacle deflector disposed at a first longitudinal end of the carriage and a second obstacle deflector disposed at a second longitudinal end of the carriage (left and right longitudinal sides of the carriage in Fig. 2 have vertical faces which are capable of deflecting obstacles)
a motor for moving the carriage along the rail (motor 2, Fig. 2; ¶ [0076])
a tank carried by the carriage and holding lubricant (oil reservoir 3, Fig. 2)
a lubricant applicator subsystem having an applicator and a conduit for transferring the lubricant from the tank to the applicator (spray tubes 4 and conduits connected thereto, Fig. 2; ¶ [0077])
a robot carried by the carriage and having a robotic arm coupled to the applicator (robot 1, Fig. 2)
an object detection sensor carried by the carriage and configured for detecting objects (foreign body detector 6, Fig. 2; ¶ [0075])
the first obstacle deflector is configured to deflect objects located on the rail as the carriage moves along the rail and comes into contact with the objects (left or right longitudinal sides of the carriage in Fig. 2 have vertical faces which are capable of deflecting obstacles located on the rail as the carriage moves along the rail and comes into contact with objects)
a control system having at least one processor and memory for storing computer instructions, wherein the control system is configured to use the at least one processor to control movement of the carriage along the rail based on sensor data obtained from the object detection sensor (control unit 50, Fig. 1; ¶ [0064], [0070]-[0073]).
Zanella ‘105 is silent regarding the first obstacle deflector being used as a part of the object detection sensor as a first object detection sensor and the second obstacle deflector being used as a part of a second object detection sensor. In analogous art of rail vehicles, Chen ‘986 suggests a carriage (vehicle including bogies 10) movable along a rail (p. 3, lines 21-23), wherein the carriage includes a first obstacle deflector (detection beam 4) disposed at a first longitudinal end of the carriage and a second obstacle deflector disposed at a second longitudinal end of the carriage (p. 1, lines 41-42; p. 3, lines 29-30 – wherein a beam 4 on both sides constitute a first and a second obstacle deflector, and each end constitutes a first longitudinal end and second longitudinal end, respectively). While Chen ‘986 does not illustrate both obstacle deflectors in the drawings, Chen ‘986 makes clear that they are disposed at both ends, and such an arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because train carriages can move in both longitudinal directions on a rail, and obstacle deflectors would be needed for travel in either direction. Chen ‘986 suggests an object detection sensor carried by the carriage, wherein the first obstacle deflector is used as a part of a first object detection sensor and the second obstacle deflector is used as part of a second object detection sensor (obstacle detection unit 13, limit trigger devices 2, shock absorbing mechanism 3, detection beams 4, resistance boards/plates 5, “train control and management system TCMS”, “train bus”, “main controller”/“control unit”; p. 3, lines 28-38, 48-52; p. 3, line 59-p. 4, line 21), and wherein the first obstacle deflector includes a deflection surface that is (i) configured to deflect objects located on the rail as the carriage moves along the rail (p. 4, lines 11-14), and (ii) configured to cause detection of the objects by the object detection sensor when the deflection surface comes into contact with the objects (p. 4, lines 16-21) for the benefit of moving obstacle objects off of the rail to ensure safe movement of the carriage and to control movement of the carriage in response to an object on the rail as needed to prevent damage or derailing of the carriage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zanella ‘105 by using the first obstacle deflector and the second obstacle deflector as a first object detection sensor and a second object detection sensor, and configuring the deflection surface of the first obstacle deflector to cause detection of objects by the object detection sensor when the deflection surface comes into contact with the objects for the benefit of simultaneously moving obstacle objects off of the rail to ensure safe movement of the carriage and to control movement of the carriage in response to an object on the rail as needed to prevent damage or derailing of the carriage, as suggested by Chen ‘986.
Zanella ‘105 is silent regarding the control system being onboard and carried by the carriage (structure 5j with control unit 5g, Fig. 1; ¶ [0035]-[0036]). In analogous art of robotic lubrication systems, Meier ‘715 suggests a robotic lubrication system that is moveable on a carriage, and which has an on onboard control system carried on the carriage. Chen ‘986 also suggests carrying an onboard control system on the carriage which is configured to control movement (braking) of the carriage along the rail based on sensor data obtained from the object detection sensor (p. 3, lines 35-37, 48-49, 59-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zanella ‘105 by making the control system an onboard control system carried by the carriage as a known location of a control system in a robotic lubrication system, as suggested by Meier ‘715, and in a rail carriage system with an object detection sensor, as suggested by Chen ‘986.
Regarding claim 2, Zanella ‘105 further teaches the tank is disposed upon a top side of the carriage (oil reservoir 3, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Zanella ‘105 further teaches the tank is disposed upon a top side of the carriage (oil reservoir 3, Fig. 2), the robotic arm is disposed upon a top side of the carriage (robot 1, Fig. 2), and the robotic arm is configured to position the applicator for applying the lubricant to a mold of a glass forming machine (IS machine 20, Fig. 1; ¶ [0022], [0069], [0079]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 5, Zanella ‘105 further teaches an energy cable chain extending underneath the rail and including hoses for air used by the lubricant applicator subsystem for spraying the lubricant (cable-carrying chain 7, Fig. 2; ¶ [0074]).
Regarding claim 10, Zanella ‘105 and Chen ‘986 suggest the first object detection sensor and the second object detection sensor as described above. Chen ‘986 further suggests the first object detection sensor is disposed at the first longitudinal end of the carriage and the second object detection sensor is disposed at the second longitudinal end of the carriage (p. 1, lines 41-42; p. 3, lines 28-30). While Chen ‘986 does not illustrate both object detection sensors in the drawings, Chen ‘986 makes clear that they are disposed at both ends, and such an arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because train carriages can move in both longitudinal directions on a rail, and object detection sensors would be needed for travel in either direction.
Regarding claim 11, Zanella ‘105 further teaches the robot is controlled based on sensor data obtained from the object detection sensor (¶ [0075]). Chen ‘986 further suggests controlling the carriage movement based on sensor data obtained from the first object detection sensor and the second object detections sensor for the benefit of ensuring safe movement of the carriage and controlling movement of the carriage in response to an object on the rail as needed to prevent damage or derailing of the carriage (p. 4, lines 16-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zanella ‘105, Chen ‘986, and Meier ‘715 by controlling the robot based on sensor data obtained from the first object detection sensor and the second object detection sensor for the benefit of ensuring safe movement of the carriage and robot, and controlling movement of the carriage and robot in response to an object on the rail as needed to prevent damage or derailing of the carriage and robot, as suggested by Chen ‘986.
Regarding claim 12, Zanella ‘105 and Chen ‘986 suggest the first object detection sensor as described above. Chen ‘986 further suggests configuring the first object detection sensor to obtain sensor data concerning stationary objects on the rail (p. 4, lines 16-21 – wherein the first object detection sensor would detect moving or stationary objects upon contact) for the benefit of ensuring safe movement of the carriage, and controlling movement of the carriage in response to an object on the rail as needed to prevent damage or derailing of the carriage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zanella ‘105 by making the robotic mold lubrication system be configured so that the first object detection sensor is used to obtain sensor data concerning stationary objects on the rail for the benefit of ensuring safe movement of the carriage, and controlling movement of the carriage in response to an object on the rail as needed to prevent damage or derailing of the carriage, as suggested by Chen ‘986.
Regarding claim 13, Zanella ‘105 further teaches controlling a position or speed of the robotic arm of the robot (¶ [0069]-[0073]), such that an operating state of the robot is a position or speed of the robotic arm.
Regarding claim 18, Zanella ‘105 teaches a plurality of glass container forming machines, wherein each of the glass container forming machines include a mold (¶ [0002], [0040], [0042]-[0046], [0069]), and the robotic mold lubrication system of claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, Zanella ‘105 further teaches the mold is a blank mold of a blank side of an individual section (IS) machine (¶ [0002], [0042]-[0046], [0069]).
Regarding claim 20, Zanella ‘105 further teaches the mold is a blow mold of a blow side of an individual section (IS) machine (¶ [0002], [0007]-[0008], [0040]).
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanella ‘105 (US 2009/0173105 A1), Chen ‘986 (CN 112622986 A – English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein), and Meier ‘715 (US 2020/0361715 A1) in view of Mine ‘727 (US 5,785,727).
Regarding claim 3, Zanella ‘105, Chen ‘986, and Meier ‘715 teach the onboard control system as described above, but are silent regarding electrical cabinetry having at least one solenoid used to control flow of air and/or oil that is used as a part of the lubricant application system. In analogous art of robotic mold lubrication systems, Mine ‘727 suggests a robotic mold lubrication system including electrical cabinetry having at least one solenoid used to control flow of air and/or oil that is used as a part of a lubricant application system for the benefit of controlling supply of lubricant (column 3, lines 50-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zanella ‘105, Chen ‘986, and Meier ‘715 by including electrical cabinetry having at least one solenoid used to control flow of air and/or oil that is used as a part of the lubricant application system, as suggested by Mine ‘727 for the benefit of controlling supply of lubricant.
Regarding claim 17, Zanella ‘105 teaches the lubricant applicator subsystem as described above, but is silent regarding an electronically-controllable valve configured to control flow of the lubricant through the applicator. In analogous art of robotic mold lubrication systems, Mine ‘727 suggests an electronically-controllable valve configured to control flow of the lubricant through the applicator for the benefit of controlling flow of the lubricant (column 3, lines 50-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zanella ‘105 by including an electronically-controllable valve configured to control flow of the lubricant through the applicator for the benefit of controlling flow of the lubricant as suggested by Mine ‘727.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanella ‘105 (US 2009/0173105 A1), Chen ‘986 (CN 112622986 A – English language translation provided herewith and referenced herein), and Meier ‘715 (US 2020/0361715 A1) in view of Marinelli ‘401 (US 2019/0256401 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Zanella ‘105 and Chen ‘986 suggest the first obstacle deflector and the second obstacle deflector as described above. Zanella ‘105 further teaches the first obstacle deflector and the second obstacle deflector each include a planar surface disposed orthogonal to a movement direction of the carriage along the rail (left and right longitudinal sides of the carriage in Fig. 2 have vertical, planar faces which are orthogonal to the left-right movement of the carriage along rail 5, and which are capable of deflecting obstacles). Zanella ‘105 is silent regarding the planar surfaces being metal. In analogous art of lubricating glassware molds, Marinelli ‘401 suggests that metal is a known material used in structures of glass lubrication systems (“Member 64 may be made from conventional metals and metal alloys such as steel”, ¶ [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zanella ‘105 by making the planar surfaces metal, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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 21 and 24-26 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reasons remain the same as stated in the Office action dated 04-20-2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 10-13, and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In view of the instant amendments, Chen ‘986 is newly cited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
