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 1-11 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 and claim 11 each recite the limitation "when an angle […] is a predetermined angle and a through hole formed therein" in lines 5-6 and lines 6-7, respectively. It is grammatically unclear whether the “when” clause also applies to the through hole formed therein.
Claim 1 and claim 11 each recite “a restricting member having a contact portion in contact with the first member when an angle between the first member and the second member is a predetermined angle and a through hole formed therein” in lines 4-6 and 5-7, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It has not been established that an angle between the first member and the second member must ever be a predetermined angle, and therefore whether a contact portion of a restricting member must ever come in contact with the first member.
Claim 1 and claim 11 each recite “an angle between the first member and the second member” in lines 5-6 and lines 6-7, respectively. Claims 1 and 11 also each recite “a second member coupled rotatably around a rotation axis to the first member” in line 3 and line 4, respectively. It is unclear whether the “an angle between the first member and the second member” is referring to an angle of rotation of the first member relative to the second member, or whether it is referring to a physical angle between two parts (e.g. the angle between two surfaces).
Claim 1 and claim 11 each recite “a restricting member having a contact portion in contact with the first member when an angle between the first member and the second member is a predetermined angle and a through hole formed therein” in lines 4-6 and lines 5-7, respectively. As written, a restricting member appears to be contingent upon the “when” condition (i.e. the claimed angles being equal) being met, if the when condition is never met (i.e. the angle between the first member and the second member is never equal to the predetermined angle) then is the restricting member optional? For the purpose of further examination on the merits the claim will be treated as requiring a restricting member regardless of whether the “when” condition is met.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "when a line segment […] is drawn". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It has not been established that a line segment must be drawn.
Claim 5 recites “when a line segment […] is drawn”. Claim(s) 5 claim(s) both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. Per MPEP 2173.05.II, “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d.” Per In re Katz, it is unclear as to when direct infringement occurs. The limitation “is drawn” is a method step but is contained within an apparatus claim. Is claim 5 only infringed if a line is physically drawn? Presumably the line segment is an imaginary line segment and exists whether or not it is actually drawn. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, the claim will be treated as not requiring a line segment to actually be drawn, but rather as requiring an imaginary line segment.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Yoneda (US2015/0246450, cited by Applicant).
Yoneda discloses:
Re claim 1. A robot (R; “robot”, see para. [0025] and Fig. 6) comprising:
a first member (1);
a second member (2) coupled rotatably around a rotation axis to the first member;
a restricting member (3; “fixing device”, see para. [0054] and Fig. 6) having a contact portion (32) in contact with the first member when an angle between the first member and the second member is a predetermined angle and a through hole (LH) formed therein;
a first locking member (SC; see Fig. 6) passing through the through hole and locking the restricting member to the second member; and
a second locking member (SC; see Fig. 6) locking the restricting member to the second member, wherein
as seen from a direction along the rotation axis,
a distance between the contact portion and the first locking member is shorter than a distance between the contact portion and the second locking member (see Fig. 6), and
a length of the through hole in a direction from the first locking member to the contact portion is longer than a diameter of the first locking member (see Fig. 6).
Re claim 2. The robot according to claim 1, wherein
as seen from the direction along the rotation axis,
a length of the through hole (LH) in a direction along a rotation direction around the rotation axis is longer than the diameter of the first locking member (SC).
Re claim 3. The robot according to claim 2, wherein
as seen from the direction along the rotation axis,
a width of the through hole (LH) in a direction crossing the direction along the rotation direction is smaller from the first locking member (SC) toward the contact portion (see Fig. 6. The ends of the through hole (LH) are curved and so therefore narrow and so therefore a width of the through hole (LH) aat the end closest to the contact portion (32) smaller than the width of the through hole (LH) at the first locking member (SC)).
Re claim 4. The robot according to claim 3, wherein
as seen from the direction along the rotation axis,
a shape of a part of the through hole (LH) is tapered on one side, tapered on both sides, or an arc shape (see Fig. 6, LH has an arc shape and also tapers at each end).
Re claim 5. The robot according to claim 3, wherein
as seen from the direction along the rotation axis,
when a line segment crossing the restricting member from the rotation axis via the through hole is drawn, of parts in which the line segment and the restricting member overlap, a dimension of a first part between the through hole and the rotation axis is smaller than a dimension of a second part in a position over the through hole from the rotation axis (see annotated Figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
893
1160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11. A robot system comprising a robot (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove) and a controller (see servo motor in para. [0026]; the servo motor necessarily requires a controller) controlling the robot, wherein
the robot includes:
a first member; (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove)
a second member coupled rotatably around a rotation axis to the first member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove);
a restricting member having a contact portion in contact with the first member when an angle between the first member and the second member is a predetermined angle and a through hole formed therein (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove);
a first locking member passing through the through hole and locking the restricting member to the second member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove); and
a second locking member locking the restricting member to the second member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove), and
as seen from a direction along the rotation axis,
a distance between the contact portion and the first locking member is shorter than a distance between the contact portion and the second locking member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove), and
a length of the through hole in a direction from the first locking member to the contact portion is longer than a diameter of the first locking member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Denso (JP2023-006866; cited by Applicant).
Denso discloses:
Re claim 1. A robot comprising:
a first member (12);
a second member (11) coupled rotatably around a rotation axis to the first member;
a restricting member (41) having a contact portion (43b) in contact with the first member when an angle between the first member and the second member is a predetermined angle and a through hole (one of 42 and 45) formed therein;
a first locking member (70) passing through the through hole (42) and locking the restricting member to the second member; and
a second locking member (other of 70) locking the restricting member to the second member, wherein
as seen from a direction along the rotation axis,
a distance between the contact portion (43b) and the first locking member (70) is shorter than a distance between the contact portion and the second locking member (other of 70), and
a length of the through hole (42) in a direction from the first locking member (70) to the contact portion (43b) is longer than a diameter of the first locking member (see Figs. 3-5).
Re claim 2. The robot according to claim 1, wherein
as seen from the direction along the rotation axis,
a length of the through hole (42) in a direction along a rotation direction around the rotation axis is longer than the diameter of the first locking member (70). (see Figs. 3-5)
Re claim 6. The robot according to claim 1, wherein
with the through hole (42) as a first through hole and the contact portion as a first contact portion,
the restricting member has a second contact portion (opposite of 43b; see Figs. 3-5) in contact with the first member at an opposite side to the first contact portion and a second through hole (45) formed therein, and
the second locking member (other of 70) locks the restricting member to the second member through the second through hole (45).
Re claim 7. The robot according to claim 1, wherein
a cutout portion (see annotated Figure 3 below) is provided between the first locking member (70) and the second locking member (other of 70) in the restricting member.
PNG
media_image2.png
422
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 8. The robot according to claim 7, wherein
with the cutout portion as a first cutout portion, a second cutout portion is provided at an inner side of the first cutout portion (see annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
422
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re claim 9. The robot according to claim 7, wherein
the cutout portion is provided at a rotation center side of the second member (11) of the restricting member (Restricting member 41 is made of plate material (see para. [0047], and so as seen in Fig. 1 the cutout is open on both sides, including at the rotation center side of the second member of the restricting member) .
Re claim 10. The robot according to claim 1, wherein
the restricting member has a portion having a smaller thickness between the first locking member and the second locking member (see annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
499
674
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11. A robot system comprising a robot (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove) and a controller (para. [0042] - “controlled”) controlling the robot, wherein
the robot includes:
a first member; (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove)
a second member coupled rotatably around a rotation axis to the first member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove);
a restricting member having a contact portion in contact with the first member when an angle between the first member and the second member is a predetermined angle and a through hole formed therein (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove);
a first locking member passing through the through hole and locking the restricting member to the second member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove); and
a second locking member locking the restricting member to the second member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove), and
as seen from a direction along the rotation axis,
a distance between the contact portion and the first locking member is shorter than a distance between the contact portion and the second locking member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove), and
a length of the through hole in a direction from the first locking member to the contact portion is longer than a diameter of the first locking member (see rejection of claim 1 hereinabove).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukuda (US2023/0136568) discloses a robot having a first stopper and a second stopper.
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, Charles Fox can be reached on (571) 272-6923. 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
/CHARLES A FOX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618