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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of JP2023-096157 filed on 12 June 2023 was received on 8 July 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 June 2024 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are listed below. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function (as listed below), and equivalents thereof.
mobile part configured to… in Claim 1 and Claim 14
See at least paragraphs [0014] and [0030]-[0032] of the specification, FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and FIG. 4 (reference number 110): a mobile part comprises wheels.
operation part configured to… in Claim 1 and Claim 14
See at least paragraphs [0021] and [0061] of the specification, FIG. 1 (reference number 140), and Claim 6: an operation part comprises two motors.
positioning part…being configured to… in Claim 1 and Claim 14
See at least paragraphs [0018]-[0020], [0038], and [0042] of the specification and FIG. 1 (reference number 130): a positioning part comprises more than three robotic arm linkages.
mobile-part driving part configured to… in Claim 2
See at least paragraph [0014] and [0032] of the specification, FIG. 1, and FIG. 4 (reference number 111): a mobile-part driving part driving part is two driving wheels.
first detection part configured to… in Claim 3
See at least paragraph [0027] of the specification and FIG. 1 (reference number 201): a first detection part is a laser range sensor (LRF or LIDAR).
second detection part configured to… in Claim 3
See at least paragraph [0028] of the specification and FIG. 1 (reference number 202): a second detection part is a camera.
first driving part…being configured to… in Claim 4
See at least [0042], [0047], and FIG. 1 (reference numbers 135 to 137): a first driving part is three robotic arm linkages with motors.
second driving part configured to… in Claim 4
See at least [0043]-[0045] and FIG. 1 (reference numbers 131 to 134): a second driving part is at least one robotic arm linkage that at least can cause vertical lifting as shown in the figures.
female screw part configured to… in Claim 6
See at least paragraph [0055] of the specification and FIG. 5 (reference number 153): a female screw part is a threaded component that surrounds a fastener.
female screw rotation part configured to… in Claim 6
See at least FIG. 5 (reference number 151): a female screw rotation part is part of the threaded component that surrounds a fastener.
nut rotation part configured to… in Claim 6
See at least FIG. 5 (reference number 152): a nut rotation part is a component that surrounds the nut / is fitted to the nut.
female screw rotational driving part configured to… in Claim 6
See at least paragraph [0061] of the specification (reference number 502): a female screw rotational driving part is a motor.
nut rotational driving part configured to… in Claim 6
See at least paragraph [0061] of the specification (reference number 503): a nut rotational driving part is a motor.
imaging unit for… in Claim 7
See at least paragraph [0064] of the specification and FIG. 5 (reference number 510): an imaging unit is a camera.
third detection part configured to… in Claim 10
See at least paragraph [0062] of the specification and FIG. 5 (reference numbers 504 and 505): a third detection part is an encoder.
switching part configured to… in Claim 11
See at least paragraph [0023]-[0024] and [0071] of the specification and FIG. 3 (reference number 712): a switching part is an opening/closing valve lever.
swing driving part configured to… in Claim 11
See at least paragraph [0025]-[0026], [0073]-[0083], and [0095] of the specification, FIG. 1 to 2, and FIG. 7 to 10 (reference number 750): a swing driving part includes a motor.
switching driving part configured to… in Claim 11
See at least paragraph [0072] of the specification and FIG. 7 (reference number 770): a switching driving part is a motor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 5 recite “a certain value”; however, Claim 1 already introduced “a certain value”: the Examiner has interpreted the recitations in Claims 3 and 5 to be the same as and/or different from the recitation in Claim 1. Applicant should update the language to clarify which is true (e.g., “the certain value” if they are the same, “a second certain value” / “a third certain value” if they are different, “the certain value and/or a second certain value” if either may be true). Applicant should ensure there is support in the original disclosure for any change.
Claim 8: Examiner believes “a screw pitch of the bolt of the female screw part” should be “a screw pitch of
Claim 11: “the detected hydraulic pressure” has not been introduced / there is no part to detect pressure claimed; therefore, the Examiner is interpreting this claim as “the controller is configured to control the swing driving part based on a value of [[the]]a detected hydraulic pressure”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the English Translation of WO 2021/207861 A1 (Boccardi et al., hereinafter, Boccardi) in view of WO 2020/212323 A1 (Elberling and Nielsen, hereinafter, Elberling).
Note: there are two sets of paragraph numbers in Boccardi (Non Patent Literature attachment to this office action), the citations below refer to the large/bold paragraph numbers.
Regarding Claim 1, Boccardi discloses A tightening device (see at least [0002]: robotic system for joining bolts) comprising:
a mobile part configured to be able to move by driving control (see at least [0057] and Figure 1: vehicle 301 is shown with wheels);
a bolt tensioner configured to perform a tightening operation for a bolt (see at least [0046] and [0077]: the tool tightening nuts may be a bolt tensioner);
an operation part… (see at least Figure 1: the end effector parts that are not the bolt tensioner / tool);
a positioning part that is mounted on the mobile part and is mounted with the bolt tensioner and the operation part, the positioning part being configured to position a three-dimensional position of the bolt tensioner (see at least Figure 1: robotic arm 401 with at least five degrees of freedom holds tool 405); and
a controller (see at least [0019], [0022], [0042], and [0080]) configured to:
cause the mobile part to move so that a distance to the bolt falls within a certain value (see at least [0057]: vehicle 301 moves to approach work point 100 while a safe distance is maintained);
cause the positioning part to operate so that the three-dimensional position becomes a position where the bolt is tightened after the mobile part is moved (see at least [0070] and [0081]: the arm positions the tool over the part); and
…so that the bolt tensioner performs the tightening operation after the three-dimensional position is determined to be the position where the bolt is tightened (see at least [0081]: task is executed once the tool is in working position).
While Boccardi notes that manual tools have motorized assistance (see at least [0009]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that Boccardi does have a driving control for the bolt tensioner in order to operate the bolt tensioner, Boccardi does not explicitly disclose an operation part configured to operate the bolt tensioner by driving control / drive the operation part.
Elberling, in the same field of robots for bolt tensioning, and therefore analogous art, teaches an operation part configured to operate the bolt tensioner by driving control / drive the operation part (see at least page 18 lines 33-39 and page 19 lines 1-10: second unit 20b includes a bolt tensioner / motors to operate portions of the bolt tensioner).
Combining structural and control features of the specifically defined second unit 20b of Elberling with the generically defined bolt tensioner / end effector structure and control of Boccardi, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of using the known technique of Elberling to improve a similar device of Boccardi in the same way (i.e., to improve the more generic disclosure of Boccardi to have all the components necessary to function with specific, necessary, component / controls taught by Elberling).
Regarding Claim 2, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Boccardi further discloses / suggests the mobile part comprises: a mobile-part driving part configured to perform forward movement, backward movement, turning, and movement along a circular arc track of the mobile part (see at least Figure 1 and [0057]: the wheeled vehicle may have an electric means of locomotion; moving as claimed would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the figures / disclosure showing moving like a vehicle); and
an outrigger configured to be able to extend in a moving direction of a center of gravity corresponding to positioning of the bolt tensioner (see at least [0036], [0061], and Figure 1: Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an outrigger “a projecting member run out from a main structure to provide additional stability or to support something”; therefore, the arm including clamp 304 and/or electromagnet 306 is an outrigger).
Regarding Claim 3, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 2. Furthermore, Boccardi further discloses further comprising:
a first detection part configured to detect first detection information indicating at least one of a self-position and an obstacle (see at least [0035], [0069], and Figure 1: distance sensor 404); and
a second detection part configured to detect a position of the bolt (see at least [0058]-[0059] and Figure 1: camera 305 and/or 403), wherein
the controller is configured to cause the mobile part to move so that a distance from the bolt falls within a certain value by controlling the mobile-part driving part using the first detection information and the position of the bolt (see at least [0057]-[0059], and [0073]: camera 403 and distance sensor 404 are used to control the position of vehicle 301 relative to work point 100).
Regarding Claim 4, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Boccardi further discloses wherein the positioning part comprises: a first driving part having three or more degrees of freedom, the first driving part being configured to cause the bolt tensioner to move in a first direction (see at least Figure 1: robotic arm 401); and a second driving part configured to cause the bolt tensioner to move in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (see at least Figure 1: the segments of the robotic arm closest to vehicle 301).
Regarding Claim 5, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 4. Furthermore, Boccardi further discloses / suggests wherein the controller is configured to: cause the mobile part to move to a position where a distance from the bolt falls within a certain value in a state where the bolt tensioner is positioned to be higher than the bolt (see at least [0070]: arm positions the tool over the bolt); drive the first driving part so that the bolt tensioner moves to an upper position of the bolt; and drive the second driving part so that the bolt tensioner moves until contacting with the bolt after the bolt tensioner is located at the upper position of the bolt (see at least Figure 1: one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the entire arm could move in both instances; thereby meeting this limitation, contact with the bolt is necessary for operation of the bolt tensioner).
Regarding Claim 6, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 1. As previously discussed, Boccardi does not explicitly disclose many of the specifics of the bolt tensioner / operation part. Elberling, with the same motivation to come as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1, teaches wherein the bolt tensioner comprises: a female screw part configured to be attached to the bolt; a female screw rotation part configured to rotate the female screw part; and a nut rotation part configured to rotate a nut for tightening the bolt (see at least page 18 lines 33-39 and page 19 lines 1-10: “The tensioning assembly includes a tensioner threader for threading a tensioner 26 (e.g. a TenTec Tensioner) onto a stud protrusion of existing bolt connections 13, encoders, a tensioner 26 for tensioning the existing bolt connections 13, and a torque application device for applying torque to a nut 13b of the existing bolt connections 13 after a bolt 13a has been tensioned by the tensioner 26”), and
the operation part comprises: a female screw rotational driving part configured to perform driving control for a wrench configured to rotate the female screw rotation part; and a nut rotational driving part configured to perform driving control for a wrench configured to rotate the nut rotation part (see at least page 18 lines 33-39 and page 19 lines 1-10: “A motor controls the tensioning threader for threading the tensioner 26 on the bolt 13a to be tightened, and a separate motor controls the torque application device for turning the nut 13b after the bolt 13a has been tensioned”)
Regarding Claim 7, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 6. Additionally, the Boccardi and Elberling combination, with the same motivation to come as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1, teaches wherein
the operation part further comprises an imaging unit for taking an image of the bolt (see at least Boccardi Figure 1: camera 403 is on the end effector; one of ordinary skill in the art would consider that the camera 403 of Boccardi mounted on the end effector would be mounted on the structure of second unit 20b in the combination already made in Claim 1, thereby meeting this limitation), and
the controller is configured to:
cause the positioning part to move to a position where the image of the bolt is taken by the imaging unit after the mobile part is moved (see at least Boccardi [0057]-[0059] and [0073]: multiple images taken); and
cause the positioning part to operate so that the three-dimensional position becomes the position where the bolt is tightened by driving control using the taken image after the positioning part is moved (see at least Boccardi [0073]: tool position corrected with images from camera 403).
Regarding Claim 8, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 6. Additionally, the Boccardi and Elberling combination, with the same motivation to come as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1, teaches wherein the controller is configured to: cause the positioning part to operate (see at least Boccardi [0070]: arm positions the tool over the bolt) so that the bolt tensioner is lowered in accordance with a movement amount corresponding to a screw pitch of the bolt of the female screw part to be attached to the bolt by rotation, and detect that the three-dimensional position becomes the position where the bolt is tightened, based on whether torque of the female screw rotational driving part has reached a target value, or variation of a current for driving the female screw rotational driving part (see at least page 18 lines 33-39 and page 19 lines 1-10: “a torque application device for applying torque to a nut 13b of the existing bolt connections 13 after a bolt 13a has been tensioned by the tensioner 26”; “A motor controls the tensioning threader for threading the tensioner 26 on the bolt 13a to be tightened, and a separate motor controls the torque application device for turning the nut 13b after the bolt 13a has been tensioned”).
Regarding Claim 9, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 6. As previously discussed, Boccardi does not explicitly disclose many of the specifics of the bolt tensioner / operation part. Elberling, with the same motivation to come as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1, teaches wherein the controller is configured to detect whether to end the tightening operation by the bolt tensioner based on whether torque of the nut rotational driving part has reached a target value, or variation of a current for driving the nut rotational driving part (see at least page 18 lines 33-39 and page 19 lines 1-10: “A motor controls the tensioning threader for threading the tensioner 26 on the bolt 13a to be tightened, and a separate motor controls the torque application device for turning the nut 13b after the bolt 13a has been tensioned”).
Regarding Claim 10, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 6. As previously discussed, Boccardi does not explicitly disclose many of the specifics of the bolt tensioner / operation part. Elberling, with the same motivation to come as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1, teaches wherein the operation part further comprises a third detection part configured to detect second detection information indicating a rotation amount by at least one of the female screw rotational driving part and the nut rotational driving part, and the controller is configured to cause a storage device to store the second detection information (see at least page 18 lines 33-39, page 19 lines 1-10, and page 23 lines 16-20: encoders, collected data is stored).
Regarding Claim 13, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Boccardi further discloses wherein the controller is configured to perform some or all of a movement operation for causing the mobile part to move, a positioning operation for causing the positioning part to operate, and the tightening operation in accordance with an instruction input from an operating device (see at least [0016]: automatic, semi-automatic, or tele-operated control).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boccardi in view of Elberling in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,445,505 (hereinafter, Hung).
Regarding Claim 11, the Boccardi and Elberling combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Boccardi and Elberling both indicate that using hydraulics for bolt tension is well-known in the art, but neither provides for the specific arrangements.
Hung, in the same field of hydraulic pumps, and therefore analogous art, teaches further comprising: a hydraulic pressure supply part configured to supply hydraulic pressure to the bolt tensioner (see at least column 1 lines 36-51: connect to a hose to power hydraulic equipment), wherein the hydraulic pressure supply part comprises: a pressurizing bar configured to increase the hydraulic pressure by performing swing operation (see at least FIG. 3: lever 3); a switching part configured to switch whether to apply the hydraulic pressure (seat least FIG. 2: the relief valve 29).
Combining structural features of the hydraulic pump of Hung with the Boccardi and Elberling combination, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of using the known technique / specific device of Hung to generate hydraulic power for the bolt tensioner of the Boccardi and Elberling combination to provide the benefit of a specific source for hydraulic power to operate the bolt tensioner.
The limitations a swing driving part configured to perform swing operation of the pressurizing bar; and a switching driving part configured to perform switching operation of the switching part, and the controller is configured to control the swing driving part based on a value of the detected hydraulic pressure are directed to automating a manual activity (automating use of a hydraulic hand pump) and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144 / In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)). Applicant disclosed that the pump claimed here, is just one of multiple that would work for the invention (see specification paragraph [0069]), and there is no unexpected result from automating the manual process.
Regarding Claim 12, the Boccardi, Elberling, and Hung combination teaches Claim 11. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1, Boccardi has a second robotic arm with clamps / electromagnets. These robotic arms have rotation shafts, and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider that the hydraulic pump could be attached to one of these robotic arms so that it travels with the robot easily and therefore, further comprising: an attachment part for attaching the hydraulic pressure supply part, wherein the attachment part includes a rotation shaft for changing orientation of the attached hydraulic pressure supply part would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of mounting the hydraulic pump on an existing part of Boccardi (i.e., a robotic arm) which would then enable the motion of the limitation.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0333812 which teaches “Handle 220 can be actuatable by an operator (e.g., human and/or robotic user) to initiate flow of pneumatic or hydraulic fluid in actuatable cylinder 210, and move adapter 200 (e.g., extension member 230 and/or adapter plate 130)” (see at least [0020]).
U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0041918 which teaches screw identification via identification indicia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights