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 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 3 and 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 3: Claim 3 recites “the first workpiece includes an opening” in line 3. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. It is noted that “a first workpiece” is recited as an intended use in claim 1 (which upon claim 3 depends). It is not clear if “a/the first workpiece” is a structural limitation of the instant invention, the manipulator. For examination purposes, “the first workpiece” is interpreted as an intended use.
Claim 11: Claim 11 recites “the first workpiece is a door of a vehicle” and “the second workpiece is a frame of the vehicle”. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. Claims 1 and 8 (which upon claim 11 depends) recite “the first workpiece” and “the second workpiece” as intended uses. It is not clear if the first workpiece and the second workpiece are structural parts of the instant invention, the manipulator. For examination purposes, “the workpiece” and “the second workpiece” are interpreted as intended uses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-3, 5, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokote et al (US 2022/0033020 A1) in view of Hirobumi et al (JP 2010-228017A; cited in IDS dated 8/19/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Yokote et al (‘020) discloses a manipulator, comprising:
an arm 4b (para[0085]);
a gripping part 21 (para[0078]) that is provided to the arm and grips a first workpiece 3 (para[0078], “a car door”); and
a tool part 22 (para[0094]) that is provided to the arm 4b via a member (fig4) and carries out processing with respect to the first workpiece 3 which is gripped by the gripping part 21 (fig6). However, Yokote et al does not explicitly disclose a use of a force sensor provided to the arm.
Hirobumi et al (‘017) teaches a use of a force sensor 19 (para[0021]) provided on a tip side of an arm 13 (para[0021], fig1) from a tool part 34 (para[0024], fig1) for a manipulator (fig1) to avoid excessive force on a workpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yokote et al to use a force sensor, as taught by Hirobumi et al, for the purpose of avoiding excessive force on a workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al teaches the manipulator as set forth in claim 1. Yokote et al, as modified by Hirobumi et al, further discloses a control part (para[0086],[0164]) that carries out position control of the gripping part in accordance with a detection result by the force sensor (taught by Hirobumi et al).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al teaches the manipulator as set forth in claim 2. Yokote et al further discloses wherein the gripping part 21 includes a protrusion 31 (para[0099]); the first workpiece 3 includes an opening 7a (para[0103]); and the control part carries out positioning of the gripping part 21 with respect to the first workpiece 3 by causing the protrusion 31 to engage with the opening 7a by profile control of the protrusion 31 with respect to the opening 7a (para[0103],[0104]).
Regarding claim 5¸ the combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al teaches the manipulator as set forth in claim 1. As aforementioned, Hirobumi et al teaches wherein: the force sensor 19 is provided on the tip side of the arm 13 from the tool part 34 (fig1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al teaches the manipulator as set forth in claim 1. Yokote et al further discloses wherein the tool part 22 is a device (para[0133],[0135]) that releases a joint (para[0135], “the hinge bolt 17”) between the first workpiece 3 and a second workpiece 2 (para[0135]) which is different from the first workpiece 3.
Regarding claim 9¸ the combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al teaches the manipulator as set forth in claim 8. Yokote et al further discloses wherein the tool part 22 is a device (para[0133],[0135]) that removes at least a part of a joining member (para[0135], “the hinge bolt 17”) that joins the first workpiece 3 to the second workpiece 2 (para[0135]).
Regarding claim 10¸ the combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al teaches the manipulator as set forth in claim 8. Yokote et al further discloses wherein the tool part 22 includes a nut runner (para[0133],[0135]).
Regarding claim 11¸ the combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al teaches the manipulator as set forth in claim 8. Yokote et al further discloses wherein the first workpiece 3 is a door (para[0135]) to a vehicle, and the second workpiece 2 is a frame (para[0135]) of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yokote et al (US 2022/0033020 A1) and Hirobumi et al (JP 2010-228017A; cited in IDS dated 8/19/2024) in further view of Komatsu et al (US 2011/0048649 A1).
Regarding claim 4¸ the combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al teaches the manipulator as set forth in claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach that the force sensor is a six-axis force sensor. It is noted that Yokote et al discloses that the manipulator is a six-axis robot with six joints (para[0085]). Komatsu et al (‘649) teaches that it is known to use a six-axis force sensor 508 (para[0261], “the force sensor 508 detects reactive forces in directions of six axes”) for a manipulator 504 with six joints to detect force from all moving directions. 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 combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al to use a six-axis force sensor, as further taught by Komatsu et al, detect force from all moving directions.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yokote et al (US 2022/0033020 A1) and Hirobumi et al (JP 2010-228017A; cited in IDS dated 8/19/2024) in further view of Morita (US 2003/0131459 A1).
Regarding claims 6-7¸ the combination of Yokote et al and Hirobumi et al teaches the manipulator as set forth in claim 1, however, does not explicitly teach a use of a shock absorbing part. Morita (‘459) teaches a use of a shock absorbing part 110 (para[0050]) containing an elastic material (“a shock absorbing member 100 comprised of hard rubber, a metal spring, elastic plastic, etc.”, para[0050]) for a manipulator (para[0050]), a tool part 108 (para[0050], fig1) being provided to an arm 104 (para[0049], fig1) via the shock absorbing part 110 (fig1), so that a high accuracy of control can be maintained even when the load torque or load force greatly changes (para[0018],[0050],[0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yokote et al to use a shock absorbing part, as further taught by Morita, to maintain high accuracy of control even when the load torque or load force greatly changes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights