FIRST NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: wherein the fixing apparatus is adapted to fix the first arm and the second arm which are positioned at a different pose in claims 3, 10, the fixing apparatus is adapted to fix the first arm and the second arm which are positioned in parallel to each other in claims 5, 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chikara et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0319010.
With respect to claim 1, Chikara teaches a fixing apparatus (arm fixing device 14) for use with an industrial robot (figure 7), the industrial robot comprising a first arm and a second arm connected to the first arm (first arm 3 connected to a second arm 4, figure 7), the fixing apparatus comprising: a first securing component configured to couple to the first arm (a second bracket part 16 having surface 16a that is fixed to a mounting surface 7 of a first arm 3, paragraph 34, figure 7); and a second securing component configured to couple to the second arm (a third bracket part 17 that is fixed to a mounting surface 12 of a second arm 4), wherein when the first securing component is coupled to the first arm and the second securing component is coupled to the second arm, the first arm is remained at a non-gravity position (paragraphs 34-35, figure 7).
With respect to claim 2, Chikara teaches wherein the first securing component comprises a first ring (interpreted as mounting surface 6 that is fixed to bracket 16) to encircle the first arm (figure 7) and the second securing component (interpreted as mounting surface 12 that is fixed to bracket 17) comprises a second ring to encircle the second arm (figure 7).
With respect to claim 3, Chikara teaches wherein the fixing apparatus is adapted to fix the first arm and the second arm which are positioned at a different pose.
With respect claim 4, Chikara teaches wherein the first securing component comprises a first plate to couple to the first arm and the second securing component comprises a second plate to couple to the second arm (interpreted as second bracket part 16 and third bracket part 17, figure 7).
With respect to claim 5, Chikara teaches the fixing apparatus is adapted to fix the first arm and the second arm which are positioned in parallel to each other (the arm fixing device 14 is interpreted as being adapted to fix the first and second arm, figure 7).
With respect to claims 6 and 14-17, Chikara teaches wherein the first arm and the second arm are hinged via a joint, and wherein the centroid of the joint and the centroid of the at least one of the first arm and the second arm form a plumbline parallel to a non-gravity direction.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitamura JP2017077602 (citations from translation).
With respect to claim 7, Kitamura teaches a method of measuring a backlash of a gear, the gear being coupled between an input shaft and an output shaft (input and output connected to gears 14 and 15, figure 4), the input shaft being coupled to a motor and the output shaft being coupled to an actuator, the method comprising: securing the output shaft (movement restriction means 9, page 20); causing the motor to provide a torque for the input shaft to allow the gear to rotate by a degree under the torque (servo motor that drives gears, pages 19-20); obtaining the torque and rotated degree of the gear (angular position and drive torque are monitored, pages 21-24); and determining the backlash of the gear based on the torque and the rotated degree (backlash is determined from torque and angular position, pages 21-24).
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.
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura JP2017077602 (citations from translation) in view of Chikara et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0319010.
With respect to claims 8-13, Kitamura teaches the claimed invention except wherein securing the output shaft is achieved by a fixing apparatus wherein the fixing apparatus comprises: a first securing component configured to couple to a first arm of an industrial robot; and a second securing component configured to couple to a second arm of the industrial robot. wherein when the first securing component is coupled to the first arm and the second securing component is coupled to the second arm, the first arm is remained at a non-gravity position, wherein the first securing component comprises a first ring to encircle the first arm and the second securing component comprises a second ring to encircle the second arm, wherein the fixing apparatus is adapted to fix the first arm and the second arm which are positioned at a different pose, wherein the first securing component comprises a first plate to couple to the first arm and the second securing component comprises a second plate to couple to the second arm, wherein the fixing apparatus is adapted to fix the first arm and the second arm which are positioned in parallel to each other, and wherein the first arm and the second arm are hinged via a joint, and wherein the centroid of the joint and the centroid of the at least one of the first arm and the second arm form a plumbline parallel to a non-gravity direction.
Chikara teaches a fixing apparatus (arm fixing device 14) for use with an industrial robot (figure 7), the industrial robot comprising a first arm and a second arm connected to the first arm (first arm 3 connected to a second arm 4, figure 7), the fixing apparatus comprising: a first securing component configured to couple to the first arm (a second bracket part 16 having surface 16a that is fixed to a mounting surface 7 of a first arm 3, paragraph 34, figure 7); and a second securing component configured to couple to the second arm (a third bracket part 17 that is fixed to a mounting surface 12 of a second arm 4), wherein when the first securing component is coupled to the first arm and the second securing component is coupled to the second arm, the first arm is remained at a non-gravity position (paragraphs 34-35, figure 7). Chikara also teaches wherein the first securing component comprises a first ring (interpreted as mounting surface 6 that is fixed to bracket 16) to encircle the first arm (figure 7) and the second securing component (interpreted as mounting surface 12 that is fixed to bracket 17) comprises a second ring to encircle the second arm (figure 7), wherein the fixing apparatus is adapted to fix the first arm and the second arm which are positioned at a different pose, wherein the first securing component comprises a first plate to couple to the first arm and the second securing component comprises a second plate to couple to the second arm (interpreted as second bracket part 16 and third bracket part 17, figure 7), the fixing apparatus is adapted to fix the first arm and the second arm which are positioned in parallel to each other (the arm fixing device 14 is interpreted as being adapted to fix the first and second arm, figure 7), and wherein the first arm and the second arm are hinged via a joint, and wherein the centroid of the joint and the centroid of the at least one of the first arm and the second arm form a plumbline parallel to a non-gravity direction.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fixing means of Kitamura with the fixing arm with the included additional structures as taught by Chikara in order to more secure fixing means that is able to fix a first and second arm of a robot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited prior art includes other methods of measuring backlash and robotic arm fixing means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights