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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/25 contained duplicated document WO-2020209204A1 (see IDS filed on 06/06/24). Accordingly, the document has been crossed out.
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 42, 55, 63 and 72 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.
In claim 42, the word “preferably” renders the claim indefinite. The use of a pronoun “it” also makes the claim unclear. For purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein the second axis crosses the common plane substantially orthogonally” is assumed (see on lines 1-2).
In claim 55, line 3, the word “preferably” renders the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, the phrase “with an error tolerance of 10 arc/second” is assumed.
In claim 63, line 4, the word “preferably” renders the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, the phrase “via a play-free and/or preloaded”.
In claim 72, lines 1 and 3, the word “preferably” renders the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, the phrase “wherein the line feed-through in the first joint structure…”.
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.
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) 38-42, 47-48, 51 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A.
As to claim 38, WO’204 teaches (see Figs 1, 3-5 and Abstract) a robot hand (hand portion 15) that carries an application apparatus (an end effector 80), comprising: a first joint structure (first link 11) rotatable about a first axis (A1) a second joint structure (2nd link12) rotatable about a second axis (A2), and a third joint structure (third link 13) rotatable about a third axis (A3), wherein a line feed-through (supply line 85) extends through the first joint structure and through the third joint structure and an offset between the first axis and the second axis (see Abstract). WO’204 lacks specifically teaching an application device having a print head device. However, the use of a robot hand carrying an application device having a print head device is known in the art; for instance - as taught by JP’166 (see Figs 1A and 1B for print head P as an end effector). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a print head application apparatus as an end effector if desired to improve locus accuracy of a print head as taught by JP’166 (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 39, in WO’204 the line feed-through (85) extends through the second joint structure (see Figs 3-4).
As claim 40, WO’204 teaches (see Figs 1 and 3) at least one of the first or third joint structures have a hollow center through (a line space 40) which the line feed-through extends.
Regarding claim 41, in WO’204 (see Fig 1) the first axis (A1) and the third axis (A3) extend in a common plane (in two-dimensional surface).
As to claim 42, in WO’204 the second axis (A2) crosses the common plane substantially orthogonally (see Fig 1 and claims).
Regarding claim 47, WO’204 teaches (see Abstract and English Translation page 2) at least one of the first, second or third joint structures (1st-3rd links) comprise a drive to rotate the joint structure about its axis.
As to claim 48, WO’204 teaches (see Fig 1) at least one of the drives of the first, second or third joint structures (1st-3rd links) are coupled, without its own housing and without its own bearing, to the first joint structure.
Regarding claim 51, WO’204 teaches the drive of the third joint structure comprises a direct drive (see English Translation on page 5 for servo driver capable of being direct drive since no gear is taught).
Regarding claim 66, in WO’204 as modified the robot hand has a neutral position in which the first axis and the third axis are substantially coaxially aligned (see English translation on page 4 first axis coaxial with the central axis).
Claims 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 38 and further in view of EP-1632320A1.
Regarding claims 43-44, WO’204 lacks teaching kinematially inlet and outlet sided joint structure. However, EP’320 teaches joint structures (wrist parts having axes A1-A3) are kinematically inlet-sided joint structure, and kinematically outlet-sided joint structure, and wherein the second joint structure coupled kinematically between the first joint structure and the third joint structure (see Figs 1-2, English Translation pages 3-5, and claims for kinematical connections). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include kinematially inlet and outlet sided joint structure and connections in WO’204 to allow a guide of the supply hose/line feed through in the radial and circumferential directions with respect to the longitudinal axis of the internal passage as taught by EP’320 (see English Translation on page 3).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, WOP’204 lacks teaching joint structure comprising a gear or a strain wave gear. However, EP’320 teaches wrist parts (having axes A1-A3) comprises a gear (16, 17) or a strain wave gear (27, 28, a helical toothing 28 which engages in a corresponding helical toothing 29 on the wrist part 13, see English Translation pages 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include joint structure comprising a gear or a strain wave gear in WO’204 to rotate the wrist portions, wherein the drive shaft leading rotation of the gears and transmitting the rotation to the wrist parts via internal and external gears as taught by EP’320 (see English translations pages 4-5).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 47 and further in view of WO20011/003451A1.
WO’204 teaches (see Abstract and English Translation page 2) at least one of the first, second or third joint structures (1st-3rd links) comprise a drive to rotate the joint structure about its axis, but lacks teaching a ring-shaped housing for its drive.
WO’451 teaches (Fig 3) at least one of the first, second or third joint structures forms a ring-shaped housing for its drive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a ring-shaped housing for its drive in WO’204 to allow rotation within the housing and prevent damage of wrist portions.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 47 and further in view of EP 11700097 A1.
WO’204 teaches (see Abstract and English Translation page 2) at least one of the first, second or third joint structures (1st-3rd links) but lacks teaching joint structures having externally at least one cooling body. EP’097 teaches at least one of the first, second or third joint structures having externally at least one cooling body (see Figs 1-2 and 6 for cooling devices 18, 41a,42a and 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include joint structures having externally at least one cooling body in WO’204 so that there are no mechanical and geometric changes the robot structure due to the coefficient of thermal expansion of their material comes as taught by EP’097 (see English translation on paragraph [0007]).
Claims 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 47 and further in view of JP-3952955B2.
As to claim 52, WO’204 teaches a line feed through, but the line feed through does not extend through at least one of the drives of the first or third joint structure. However, JP’955 teaches (see Figs 1-2) a line feed-through (cable C) extends through at least one of the drives (motor M3) of the first or third joint structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the line feed through extending through at least one of the drive of the first or third joint structure in WO’204 in order there is no cable or wiring on the outside of the arm, so it is possible to eliminate the risk of the arm coming into contact with equipment around the robot as taught by JP’955 (see English Translation on para [0011]).
Regarding claim 53, WO’204 teaches a servomotor but lacks teaching the drive of one of the first or third joint structures comprises a motor and gear hollow shaft through which the line feed-through extends. JP955 teaches (see Figs 1-2) the drive of one of the first or third joint structures comprises a motor (motor M3) and gear (16A) hollow shaft (15A) through which the line feed-through (cable C) extends. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include join a motor and gear hollow shaft of the joint structures through which the line feed-through extends in WO’204 in order there is no cable or wiring on the outside of the arm, so it is possible to eliminate the risk of the arm coming into contact with equipment around the robot as taught by JP’955 (see English Translation on para [0011]).
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 47 and further in view of JP H101751188 A.
WO’204 lacks teaching the line feed-through extends externally past at least one of the drive or the gear of the second joint structure. However, JP’188 the line feed-through (CB) extends externally past at least one of the drives (motor 13) or the gear (12) of the second joint structure (see Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the line feed-through extends externally past at least one of the drive or the gear of the second joint structure in WO’204 to provide the robot structure which prevents turning movements from interfering with wiring filament bodies, and restrain costs from being higher as taught by JP’188 (see Abstract).
Claims 55-63 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 38 and further in view of CN 107921640A or CN 107921625.
As to claims 55-63, WO’204 lacks teaching a measuring device measuring positions of the joint structures. CN’640 or CN’625 teaches (see Figs 2-3 both each and English translation on pages 7-8 or pages 6&10 respectively) a measuring device (Cm1-Cm6) measuring positions/ rotary positions of the joint structures (JTm1-JTm6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a measuring device as claimed to include a measuring device in WO’204 to calculate the angular velocity by the sensor output of the position sensor which is rotating angle differential, and by the angular velocity differential calculating the angular acceleration, the angular acceleration generate the inertia compensation torque correction value as taught by CN’625 (see English Translation on page 11).
As to claim 65, the measuring device of WO’204 as modified by CN’640 can have at least one of the first, second or third joint structure has a resolution with an error tolerance of 10 arc/sec (using PLC and routine optimization).
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A, CN 107921640A or CN 107921625 as applied to claim 58 and further in view of EP-1632320A1.
WO’204 as modified teaches rotatable, parallel or angular coupling structure of joint structures, but lacks teaching the coupling structure has intermeshing teeth or conical gear wheels. However, EP’320 teaches intermeshing teeth or intermeshing conical gear wheels (see Figs 1-2 for axel 7 having helical toothing 32, 33, gears 26, 27 and rotation of the drive shaft 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include intermeshing teeth or intermeshing conical gear wheels in WO’204 as modified to positively couple the wrist parts for rotation.
.
Claims 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 38/66 and further in view of Kitahara et al (US 2014/0331807A1)
WO’204 lacks teaching joint structures having a range of rotation greater than 120 or 130, greater than 1, 80 or 90 degrees, or more than 340, 360 or 700 degrees as claimed. However, industrial robot’s joint structures having the claimed ranges of degrees are known in the art; for instance -as taught by Kitahara et al (see para 44 and degrees 360 or more and 720 or less or 700 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the joint structures as claimed in WO’204 in order that the rotating body can be returned to the original (neutral) position in a short time with certainty as taught by Kitahara et al (see para [0009]).
Claim 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 38 and further in view of JP 6783925B2.
In WO’204 the offset is capable of being between 10 mm and 100 mm. In any event a robot hand provided with joint structures and rotational axes wherein the offset is between 10 mm and 100 mm is known in the art, as shown by JP’925 (see offset size of 5cm or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an offset in the range as claimed to achieve various length of arm link as taught by JP’925 (see English Translation on page 6).
Claims 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 38 and further in view of EP 3,89,473.
Regarding claim 70, in WO’204 there is at least one line and wherein at least one line comprises at least one media line for application agent supply and/or for fluid supply of the application apparatus (see claims for a supply line for supplying of materials). JP’166 teaches a print head device, but lacks teaching the print head device comprising at least one media return line for returning fluid from the application apparatus and/or the print head device. However, a print head device comprises at least one media return line for returning a fluid from the application apparatus and/or the print head device is known in the art, for instance as taught by EP’473 (see print head A and B connected to a media return line, see Figs 3A and 3B and English translation on pages 7 and 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the print head to media returning line in WO’204 as modified to return the coating agent or detergent to the print head during color change as taught by EP’473 (see English Translation on page 7).
As to claim 71, WO’204 teaches at least one line comprises at least one cable for power supply (see claims for a supply line for supplying electricity).
Claim 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/209204A1 in view of JP 2022083166A as applied to claim 38 and further in view of CN 113771085 A.
Although in WO’204 the feed-through has cross-section of a passage but lacks specifically teaching the feed-through having a passage cross-section of at least 40 mm to maximal 90 mm, preferably of 70 mm+/−5 mm. However, CN’085 teaches the feed-through, in the first joint structure and/or in the third joint structure, having a passage cross-section of at least 40 mm to maximal 90 mm of 70 mm+/−5 mm (see radium of 20mm<r<35; the diameter of between 40 and 70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size as claimed in WO’204 to improve the wiring efficiency (see English Translation on page 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEWEBDAR T TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1238. The examiner can normally be reached 7.00-3:30 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
YEWEBDAR T. TADESSE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights