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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 Line 3: the recitation “the other end portion” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 Lines 5-6: the recitation “the one end portion of the one end portion and the other end portion” appears to be a typo, and should be amended to --the one end portion--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 Line 4: the recitation “a second hinge” is a double inclusion (claim 7 depends on claim 6, which depends on claim 3, which first recites a second hinge on line 4). It is unclear if “a” should be amended to --the-- or if the dependency of claim 7 should not be to claim 6.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2022/0258818) in view of Chang (KR 2017-0054374-A) and Nanbu (JP 2005-170545-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses a robot (1) comprising:
A body (110) comprising a storage body with a storage space formed therein (see [0026]).
A door (130) connected to the body with a first hinge (see [0039]) and configured to rotate about the first hinge to open and close the storage space (see [0039]).
Yang does not disclose the details of the opening mechanism for the door. However, Chang teaches in closeable storage bin having, a body (100) comprising a storage body (200) with a storage space (see Fig. 3), a door (300) connected to the body with a first hinge (see Fig. 3, showing three hinges).
A driving source (521) installed on the body (see Fig. 5).
A power transmission (523) member configured to transmit a rotational force of the driving source between the driving source and the door (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robot disclosed in Yang with the opening mechanism for the door as taught in Chang to provide a powered means for reliably opening the door of the body to provide access to the storage space.
Nanbu teaches in a closable storage bin having a body (1) having a storage space (see Fig. 1), a door (3) connected to the body with a first hinge (see Fig. 1), and a spring (see [0011] of the translation) having a side connected to the body and the other side connected to the door to compensate for a gravity of the door (see [0011] of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robot disclosed in Yang with a spring for the door to compensate for gravity as taught in Nanbu to reduce the amount of force required to open and close the door (see Nanbu [0011] of the translation).
Regarding Claim 2, the Combination further suggests the robot of claim 1, wherein the body is disposed outside the storage body and comprises a driving source bracket on which the driving source is mounted (see Change Figs. 3 and 4, showing that the storage body is located within the body).
Regarding Claim 3, the Combination further suggests the robot of claim 1, wherein the power transmission member comprises: a lever (see Chang Fig. 4, showing a lever connected on one end to spring 524 and the other end to driving link 523) connected to a rotation shaft of the driving source (see Chang Fig. 5).
A driving link (Chang 523) connected to the door with a second hinge (see Chang Fig. 4), connected to the lever with a third hinge (see Chang Fig. 4), and disposed outside the storage body (see Chang Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 4, the Combination further suggests the robot of claim 3, wherein a length of the spring is shorter than a length of the driving link (see Chang Fig. 4, showing the length of the driving link is large than the size of the pivot of the hinge; see Nanbu [0011] of the translation, disclosing that the spring is a coil spring located in the “bearing 4” which is the hinge, and accordingly in the resulting combination the spring is shorter than the length of the driving link).
Regarding Claim 5, the Combination further suggests the robot of claim 3, wherein a pair of springs are provided (see Nanbu [0011] of the translation disclosing the spring is providing in the hinge 4; see also Nanbu Fig. 1, showing two hinges, and accordingly a pair of spring), and wherein the driving link is disposed between the pair of springs (see Nanbu Fig. 1, showing that the hinges having the springs are located on both sides of the driving link).
Regarding Claim 6, the Combination further suggests the robot of claim 3, wherein the door comprises one end portion spaced apart from the first hinge by a first distance (see Chang Fig. 5, showing the right side portion), and the other end portion spaced apart from the first hinge by a second distance greater than the first distance (see Chang Fig. 5), and wherein the driving source is closer to the one end portion of the one end portion and the other end portion (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, the Combination further suggests the robot of claim 6, wherein the door comprises: a driving link connection portion (see Chang Fig. 4, showing the upper straight portion of the driving link 523) where the driving link is rotatably connected to a second hinge (see Change Fig. 4, note “a” is being interpreted as “the”), and an upper connection portion to which an upper portion of the spring is connected and spaced apart from the driving link connection portion (see Nanbu Fig. 1, showing the upper portions of the side hinges 4 that have the spring are spaced apart from the driving link connection portion).
Regarding Claim 8, the Combination further suggests The robot of claim 1, wherein the body comprise a lower connection portion to which a lower portion of the spring is connected (see Nanbu Fig. 1, showing a lip of the body that the hinges attach to, and accordingly a lower portion of the spring would be connected to it, since the spring must be connected on one end to the door and the other end to the body to operate as intended).
Regarding Claim 9, the Combination further suggests The robot of claim 8, wherein a height of a lower connection portion is higher than a height of the driving source (see Chang Fig. 5, showing that the driving source is lower than the hinge and accordingly the lower connection portion that the spring is attached to).
Regarding Claim 10, the Combination further suggests The robot of claim 3, wherein the door comprises: a door body (see Yang Fig. 1; Chang Fig. 5); a driving link bracket installed on the door body and to which the driving link is connected (see Chang Fig. 4, showing the middle bracket), and a spring bracket (see Change Fig. 4, showing the two side brackets of the hinge) installed on the door body to be spaced apart from the driving link bracket (see Chang Fig. 4) and to which the spring is connected (see Nanbu [0011] of the translation, disclosing the spring being within the hinge, and accordingly would be connected to the spring bracket).
Regarding Claim 11, the Combination further suggests the robot of claim 1, wherein the spring is tensioned to a maximum when the door is closed and is tensioned to a minimum when the door is opened (see Nanbu [0011] of the translation, disclosing the spring is to balance the door, and accordingly at a maximum opened portion the spring would have the least tension and at a maximum when the door is closed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY WEBER whose telephone number is (571)272-3307. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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 ROBERT WEBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618