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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 03-02-2026.
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 10-12 and 26 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 10 recites “a first object detection sensor” in line 2, “a first longitudinal end of the carriage” in line 2, “a second object detection sensor” in line 3, and “a second longitudinal end of the carriage” in lines 3-4. Claim 1 already recites each of these limitations in lines 13, 4, 15, and 5, respectively. It is unclear if claim 10 intends to refer back to these limitations of claim 1, or introduce new limitations. For purposes of examination, claim 10 will be interpreted to refer to the equivalent limitations of claim 1.
Claim 26 recites “the robotic arm” in lines 14 and 16, and “a robotic arm” in line 19. This makes the antecedent basis of “robotic arm” unclear. Examiner recommends moving line 19 up to be recited before “a lubricant applicator subsystem…”
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 Yamamoto ‘474 (US 9,764,474 B2) 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 and the second obstacle deflector are each configured to deflect objects located on the rail as the carriage moves along the rail and comes into contact with the objects (left and right longitudinal sides of the carriage in Fig. 2 have vertical, planar 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 robotic system carriages, Yamamoto ‘474 suggests a robotic system including a carriage (installation table 4, Fig. 7) moveable along a rail (rails 8, Fig. 7) and a robot carried by the carriage (robot 1, Fig. 7), wherein the system includes a first obstacle deflector used as a part of an object detection sensor as a first object detection sensor, and a second obstacle deflector used as a part of a second object detection sensor first object detection sensor used as a part of aa second object detection sensor (devices 51a, 51c on surfaces 4a, 4c, Figs. 2, 7 - wherein surfaces 4a, 4c with devices 51a, 51c thereon are capable of deflecting obstacles located on the rail as the carriage moves along the rail and comes into contact with objects) for the benefit of monitoring obstacles in different directions and avoiding collisions (column 4, lines 34-41; column 10, lines 16-52). 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 as a part of the object detection sensor as a first object detection sensor and the second obstacle deflector as a part of a second object detection sensor for the benefit of monitoring obstacles in different directions and avoiding collisions, as suggested by Yamamoto ‘474.
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. 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.
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 Yamamoto ‘474 suggest the first object detection sensor and the second object detection sensor as described above. Yamamoto ‘474 further suggests the first object detection sensor is disposed at the first longitudinal end of the carriage and the second object detection sensor disposed at the second longitudinal end of the carriage (devices 51a, 51c on surfaces 4a, 4c, Figs. 2, 7) for the benefit of monitoring obstacles in different directions (column 10, lines 16-52). 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 disposing the first object detection sensor at the first longitudinal end of the carriage and the second object detection sensor at the second longitudinal end of the carriage for the benefit of monitoring obstacles in different directions, as suggested by Yamamoto ‘474.
Regarding claim 11, Zanella ‘105 further teaches the robot is controlled based on sensor data obtained from the object detection sensor (¶ [0075]). Yamamoto ‘474 further suggests controlling the robot based on sensor data obtained from the first object detection sensor and the second object detections sensor for the benefit of avoiding collisions (column 4, lines 34-41; column 6, lines 47-64; Figs. 3-4). 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, Yamamoto ‘474, 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 avoiding collisions, as suggested by Yamamoto ‘474.
Regarding claim 12, Zanella ‘105 and Yamamoto ‘474 suggest the first object detection sensor as described above. Yamamoto ‘474 further suggests configuring the first object detection sensor to obtain sensor data concerning stationary objects on the rail (column 4, lines 34-41; Fig. 7 – wherein the first object detection sensor would detect moving or stationary objects) for the benefit of avoiding collisions. 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 avoiding collisions, as suggested by Yamamoto ‘474.
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), Yamamoto ‘474 (US 9,764,474 B2), and Meier ‘715 (US 2020/0361715 A1) in view of Mine ‘727 (US 5,785,727).
Regarding claim 3, Zanella ‘105 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 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), Yamamoto ‘474 (US 9,764,474 B2), and Meier ‘715 (US 2020/0361715 A1) in view of Marinelli ‘401 (US 2019/0256401 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Zanella ‘105 and Yamamoto ‘474 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). Yamamoto ‘105 also suggests 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 (surfaces 4a, 4c in Figs. 2 and 7 have vertical, planar faces which are orthogonal to the left-right movement of the carriage along rail 8, and which are capable of deflecting obstacles). Zanella ‘105 and Yamamoto ‘474 are 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 teachings of Zanella ‘105 and Yamamoto ‘474 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 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21 and 24-25 are allowed.
Claim 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s arguments dated 03-02-2026 regarding the Suhara reference are persuasive. There is not sufficient teaching, suggestion, or motivation for modifying Zanella ‘105 with an interchangeable applicator as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03-02-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized as follows:
Yamamoto does not teach any obstacle deflector that is disposed at a longitudinal end of the carriage and used as a part of an object detection sensor.
Response: Yamamoto suggests obstacle deflectors of the surfaces 4a, 4c on longitudinal ends of the carriage, which are analogous to the surfaces on the longitudinal ends of the carriage of Zanella, and which carry thereon devices 51a, 51c, respectively, which are cited as object detection sensors. As broadly interpreted, the surfaces 4a, 4c are considered to be used as a part of the object detection sensors. Additionally, devices 51a, 51c are capable of functioning as obstacle deflectors, wherein if they were to come into contact with objects as the carriage moves along the rail, they would be capable of deflecting objects.
A person skilled in the art would not interpret the laser scanner devices 51a to 51c of Yamamoto as being an obstacle deflector, nor would they interpret Yamamoto as teaching or suggesting that Zanella be modified to have an obstacle deflector used for detecting objects as part of an object detection sensor.
Response: The rejection includes surfaces 4a, 4c, having devices 51a, 51c thereon, as obstacle deflectors. The claim does not recite using an obstacle deflector for detecting objects; rather, it recites “deflector is used as a part of the object detection sensor”. Additionally, devices 51a, 51c are capable of functioning as obstacle deflectors, wherein if they were to come into contact with objects as the carriage moves along the rail, they would be capable of deflecting objects.
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 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 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
Prosecution Insights