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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species A-1, Species B-1, and Species C-1 (claims 1 – 14) in the reply filed on July 31, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15 – 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and/or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 31, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein, at lowermost part of the free side of the workbench ...” Examiner believes this to be a grammatical error and will interpret the limitation as “wherein, at a lowermost part of the free side of the workbench ...”
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.
Claims 1 – 14 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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 9, and 12 – 14 each recite the limitation “the workbench.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitations to refer to the “workbench system” or the “first workbench,” each of which have been previously set forth in the claims. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret each of the limitations as “the first workbench.”
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “wherein the second surface is a transport surface via which objects are transported ...” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a workbench system.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘transporting objection via the transport surface,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of operating a workbench system,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘transport surface,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘workbench system’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the second surface is a transport surface which is configured to transport objects ...”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a free side of the workbench.” The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘free side of the first workbench’ previously set forth in claim 1, whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a second ‘free side of the first workbench’ which is separate and independent from the ‘free side of the first workbench’ previously set forth, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth ‘a free side of the second workbench.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a free side of the second workbench.”
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “the two workbenches.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the first workbench and the second workbench.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the horizontal distance.” There is in sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “less than 30cm,” and the claim also recites “or less than 20cm” and “or less than 10 cm” each of which are a narrower statement of the broad range. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation “the region.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia (U.S. Patent Number 10,793,355)
As to claim 1, Garcia teaches a workbench system (abstract) comprising: a first workbench having a work surface accessible to a user from a free side of the first workbench for user manipulation of objects on the work surface (figure 1, bottommost element 106 being the ‘first workbench,’ topmost element 112 of the ‘first workbench’ being the ‘work surface,’ front side of the ‘first workbench’ being the ‘free side,’ see below; column 2, lines 27 – 64).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Garcia further teaches a robotic arm mounted on the free side of the first workbench (figure 1, bottommost element 122 being the ‘robotic arm’; column 3, lines 43 – 46 and column 4, lines 1 – 5), the robotic arm having four degrees of freedom so as to be able to manipulate objects on the work surface (figures 6, 4, and 1, elements 123c, 123d, 123e, and 123f being the ‘degrees of freedom’; column 12, lines 33 – 47 and column 3, lines 43 – 54); further comprising a rail extending horizontally along the free side of the workbench (figure 2, bottommost element 118 being the ‘rail’; column 3, line 63 – column 4, line 11), the robotic arm being slidably mounted on the rail (figures 1 and 2, bottommost elements 122 and 118; column 3, line 63 – column 4, line 11).
As to claim 2, Garcia further teaches that the first workbench further comprises a second surface at a level different from that of the work surface (figure 1, element 112 of the ‘first workbench’ below the ‘work surface’ being the ‘second surface,’ see below; column 2, lines 27 – 64).
PNG
media_image2.png
459
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Garcia further teaches the robotic arm being configured to be able to manipulate objects on the second surface (figure 2, bottommost element 122 and elements 112 of the ‘first workbench’; column 3, lines 43 – 54).
As to claim 3, it is the position of the Examiner that the second surface of Garcia is a transport surface which is configured to transport object to and from the workbench (figure 1, element 112, see above).
As to claim 4, Garcia teaches that the robotic arm is movable along a vertical axis between the work surface and the second surface (figure 1, element 122). This can be found because Garcia teaches the robotic arm having a degree of freedom which allows the robotic arm to move vertically (figure 5, element 123d being the given ‘degree of freedom’; column 12, lines 33 – 47).
As to claim 5, Garcia teaches that the second surface is directly below the work surface (figure 1, see above).
As to claim 6, Garcia teaches that the first workbench further comprises an additional surface different from that of the work surface (figure 1, element 112 of the ‘first workbench’ below the ‘work surface’ being the ‘additional surface,’ see below; column 2, lines 27 – 64), the robotic arm being configured to be able to manipulate objects on the additional surface (figure 2, bottommost element 122 and elements 112 of the ‘first workbench’; column 3, lines 43 – 54).
PNG
media_image3.png
459
902
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Garcia further teaches a second workbench attachable to the first workbench and having a work surface accessible to a user from a free side of the second workbench (figure 1, middle element 106 being the ‘second workbench,’ topmost element 112 of the ‘second workbench’ being the ‘work surface,’ and a front side of the ‘second workbench’ being the ‘free side,’ see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
463
872
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, Garcia teaches that at the free side, a horizontal distance between the work surface and the rail is less than 10 cm (figures 1 and 2, elements 118 and 112). This can be found because Garcia teaches that the rail extends into to the work surface, such that there is no horizontal distance between the work surface and the rail (figure 2, elements 118 and 112).
As to claim 12, Garcia teaches that the rail is configured, in use to allow the robotic arm to move in a region occupied, in use, by a user standing adjacent to the free side of the first workbench to access the work surface (figure 2, bottommost element 118).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 9, and 11 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (International Publication Number WO 2021/182300 A1) in view of Garcia.
Because Kitamura is published in Japanese, all citations to Kitamura will actually refer to U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0121702, which claims priority from Kitamura.
As to claim 1, Kitamura teaches a workbench system (abstract) comprising: a first workbench having a work surface accessible to a user from a free side of the first workbench for user manipulation of object on the work surface (figures 1 and 2, one of elements 100 being the ‘first workbench,’ element 105 of the ‘first workbench’ being the ‘work surface,’ and the front side of the ‘first workbench’ being the ‘free side’; paragraphs 27 – 28); and a robotic arm mounted on the free side of the first workbench (figures 1 and 2, element 200 being the ‘robotic arm’; paragraph 27), the robotic arm being able to manipulate objects on the work surface (figures 1 and 2, elements 200 and 105; paragraph 27); further comprising a rail extending horizontally along the free side of the first workbench (figures 1 and 3, element 27 being the ‘rail’; paragraphs 35 – 39).
However, while Kitamura teaches the robotic arm, Kitamura does not teach the robotic arm having at least three degrees of freedom. Garcia teaches a workbench system (abstract) comprising: a first workbench having a work surface accessible to a user from a free side of the first workbench for user manipulation of objects on the work surface (figure 1, bottommost element 106 being the ‘first workbench,’ one of elements 112 of the ‘first workbench’ being the ‘work surface,’ front side of the ‘first workbench’ being the ‘free side’; column 2, lines 27 – 64); and a robotic arm mounted on the free side of the first workbench (figure 1, bottommost element 122 being the ‘robotic arm’; column 3, lines 43 – 46 and column 4, lines 1 – 5). Garcia further teaches the robotic arm having four degrees of freedom so as to be able to manipulate objects on the work surface (figures 6, 4, and 1, elements 123c, 123d, 123e, and 123f being the ‘degrees of freedom’; column 12, lines 33 – 47 and column 3, lines 43 – 54). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to employ the robotic arm of Garcia, which has four degrees of freedom, for the robotic arm of Kitamura, because Garcia teaches that such a robotic arm provides the benefit of allowing the robotic arm to be able to manipulate object on the work surface, as desired by Kitamura (paragraph 27).
As to claim 2, Kitamura teaches a second surface at a level different from that of the work surface (figures 1 and 2, element 105 from the remaining element 100 being the ‘second surface’; paragraphs 27 – 28). Examiner notes that this can be found because “level” is commonly defined as “a level or flat surface.” Because of ‘work surface’ of the ‘first workbench’ (figures 1 and 2, element 105 of a first one of elements 100) is a different “level or flat surface” than that of the ‘second surface’ (figures 1 and 2, element 105 of a second one of elements 100), the ‘second surface’ is at a “level” different than that of the ‘work surface’).
As to claim 3, it is the position of the Examiner that the second surface of Kitamura is a transport surface which is configured to transport object to and from the workbench (figure 1, element 105).
As to claim 4, Garcia teaches that the robotic arm is movable along a vertical axis between the work surface and the second surface (figure 1, element 122). This can be found because Garcia teaches the robotic arm having a degree of freedom which allows the robotic arm to move vertically (figure 5, element 123d being the given ‘degree of freedom’; column 12, lines 33 – 47).
As to claim 6, Kitamura teaches that the first workbench further comprises an additional surface different from that of the work surface (figures 1 and 2, element 105 from the remaining element 100 being the ‘additional surface’; paragraphs 27 – 28), the robotic arm being configured to be able to manipulate objects on the additional surface (figures 1 and 2, elements 105 and 200; paragraph 27).
As to claim 7, Kitamura teaches that the rail is provided with a coupling at one end of coupling, in use, to a rail of an adjacent workbench (figure 4, element 27). This can be found because Kitamura teaches that the rail comprises a plurality of rails which are coupled to one another (figure 4, elements 27, see below), which inherently requires some type of coupling to couple to the adjunct rail of the plurality of rails.
PNG
media_image5.png
383
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Kitamura further teaches a second workbench attachable, via the rail, to the first workbench and having a work surface accessible to a user from a free side of the second workbench (figures 1 and 2, remaining element 100 being the ‘second workbench,’ element 105 of the ‘second workbench’ being the ‘work surface,’ and front side of the ‘second workbench’ being the ‘free side’; paragraphs 27 – 28).
As to claim 9, Kitamura teaches that the second workbench has a rail extending horizontally along the free side of the second workbench and coupled to the rail of the first workbench such that the robotic arm can move between the rails of the first workbench and the second workbench (figures 1 3, and 4, elements 27 and 200; paragraphs 35 – 39). Examiner notes that this can be found because Kitamura clearly teach the rail comprising a plurality of rails which are coupled together (figure 4, elements 27, see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
383
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Kitamura teaches that the rail is at least partially below the work surface (figures 1 and 2, elements 105 and 27). Examiner notes that claim 11 is being interpreted such that “directly” is further defining only “entirely,” rather than also further defining “partially.”
As to claim 12, Kitamura teaches that the rail is configured, in use, to allow the robotic arm to move in a region occupied, in use, by a user standing adjacent to the free side of the first workbench to access the work surface (figures 1 and 2, elements 200, 100, and 105).
As to claim 13, Kitamura teaches that, at a lowermost part of the free side of the first workbench, there is a gap high enough to allow a user’s feet to be positioned under the first workbench (figures 1 and 8, element 100 and W). It is position of the Examiner that Kitamura teaches the gap being greater than 5 cm high. This is because Kitamura teaches the gap being approximately equal to a height between the ground and the user’s knee, which is inherently greater than 5 cm.
As to claim 14, Kitamura further teaches a control box containing electronics for the robotic arm is supported in the first workbench and is withdrawable at the free side of the first workbench (paragraph 44, wherein the ‘control device’ is the ‘control box’).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Curletto (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0055840) teaches a workbench system comprising: a first workbench having a work surface; and a robotic arm mounted on the first workbench; further comprising a rial extending horizontally along the first workbench.
Khaligh (U.S. Patent Number 9,814,640) teaches a workbench system comprising: a first workbench having a work surface; and a robotic arm mounted on the first workbench; further comprising a rial extending horizontally along the first workbench.
Higuchi (Japanese Patent Number JP 2008-241513 A) teaches a workbench system comprising: a first workbench having a work surface; and a robotic arm mounted on the first workbench; further comprising a rial extending horizontally along the first workbench.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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 Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights