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 .
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (CN 110231195) the Japanese reference (JP 3021202). The Huang reference discloses a metallurgical sampling system comprising a temperature measuring and sampling probe (1), a manipulator (23), a clamping tool (27), a shearing machine (5), and a waste material box (17,20). It is not clear if there is a “shelf” for storing the probe (1) when it is not in use, but the use of shelves in warehouses for storing parts was old and well known, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to store the spare probes on shelves motivated by their known suitability for their intended use. It is also unclear if the Huang reference discloses a “detection device”, but the manipulator would need some type of sensor to detect the orientation of the manipulator with respect to the other objects in its work area as shown by th example of the Japanese reference (camera and distance sensor 3a), therefor it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to equip the manipulator with conventional sensors for detecting the presence of the probe in the manipulator’s clamp.
With respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to place a safety fence around the work area of the manipulator to keep unauthorized personnel out of the work area for safety reasons.
With respect to claims 3-6, it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use a standard industrial robot manipulator as the manipulator of the system shown in Huang.
With respect to claim 7, non-contact ranging sensors were known as shown by the Japanese reference (camera, and distance sensor 3a).
With respect to claim 8, it would have been obvious to optimize the depth and spacing of the trenches through routine trial and error.
With respect to claim 9, it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to use a standard industrial robot manipulator as the manipulator of the system shown in Huang.
With respect to claim 10, LIDAR, or laser range finders, were old and well known distance measuring sensors, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to equip the robot manipulator of Huang with a conventional LIDAR distance sensor motivated by its art recognized suitability for its intended use.
With respect to claims 11 & 12, the method of use would be inherent to the system shown.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other references cited show manipulators for handling sample probes similar to applicant’s claimed system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights