DETAILED ACTION
for
FIXING PLATFORM FOR USE WITH INDUSTRIAL ROBOT AND METHOD OF AUTOMATICALLY MEASURING BACKLASH OF GEAR
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024, 04/11/2025 and 01/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 09/19/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show (image capturing module, as cited in claims 7 and 17-18) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears the “assembly apparatus entity”, “data acquisition apparatus” and the “Inductive sensor” do not have corresponding reference numerals in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, claim line 8: replace “balancing weight can be clamped between” with -- balancing weight is clamped between—to avoid an indefinite rejection.
Claim 4, claim lines 4-7: replace “the linkage can be accommodated within the gap when the balancing weight is coupled to the securing component such that the balancing weight is supported by the first protrusion” with -- the linkage can be accommodated within the gap when the balancing weight is coupled to the securing component such that the balancing weight is supported by the first protrusion —to avoid an indefinite rejection.
Claim 5, claim line 2: replace “the plunger can be actuated hydraulically” with -- the plunger is actuated hydraulically —to avoid an indefinite rejection.
Claim 11, claim line 2: replace “the plunger can be actuated hydraulically” with -- the plunger is actuated hydraulically —to avoid an indefinite rejection.
Claim 12, claim line 2: replace “the plunger can be actuated hydraulically” with -- the plunger is actuated hydraulically —to avoid an indefinite rejection.
Claim 13, claim line 2: replace “the plunger can be actuated hydraulically” with -- the plunger is actuated hydraulically —to avoid an indefinite rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “achieved by means of the fixing platform” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HORIGOME et al. [herein after Horigome] (US 2020/0318726).
Regarding claim 1, Horigome discloses fixing platform (10), having a baseplate (22), a securing component (20) provided on the baseplate (22); a balancing weight (202) coupled to a terminal arm of an industrial robot (200; Fig. 1); and a cylinder (24) provided on the baseplate (22) and adjacent to the securing component (20), having a plunger (34) configured to move along a first direction to
PNG
media_image1.png
658
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
clamp the balancing weight (202) when the balancing weight (202) is coupled to the securing component (20).
Regarding claim 2, Horigome further discloses the securing component (20) having a base part (26) coupled to the baseplate (22); a first protrusion (see annotated Fig. 17) extending from the base part (22); and a second protrusion (see annotated Fig. 17) extending from the base part (26), the second protrusion being spaced from the first protrusion along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction to form a gap between the first protrusion and the second protrusion (see annotated Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 3, Horigome further discloses a plunger face (34, face) towards the first protrusion and the second protrusion, the first protrusion and the second protrusion (see annotated Fig. 17) having a protrusion face towards the plunger (see annotated Fig. 17), the protrusion face being parallel to the plunger face (52), the balancing weight (202) is clamped between the protrusion face and the plunger (52) face when the balancing weight (202) is coupled to the securing component (20).
Regarding claim 4, Horigome further discloses the balancing weight (202) being coupled to the terminal arm of the industrial robot via a linkage, and the linkage is accommodated within the gap when the balancing weight (202) is coupled to the securing component (20) such that the balancing weight (202) is supported by the first protrusion and the second protrusion (see annotated Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 5, Horigome further discloses the plunger (34) is actuated hydraulically (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 6, Horigome further discloses a base (20) coupled to a stationary body (204), the baseplate (22) is coupled to the base (20).
Regarding claim 8, Horigome further discloses stationary body (204) is the ground (Fig. 3).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovannitti et al. [herein after Giovannitti] (US 2021/0008712) in view of KOKUBO [herein after Kokubo] (US 2016/0365771).
Regarding claim 9, Giovannitti discloses a method of automatically measuring a backlash of a gear and obtaining the torque and rotated degree of the gear (see abstract); and determining the backlash of the gear based on the torque and the rotated degree (¶0031).
Giovannitti fails to specifically disclose an input shaft and an output shaft; the input shaft being coupled to a motor and the output shaft being coupled to an actuator and securing the output shaft; causing the motor to provide a torque for the input shaft to allow the gear to rotate by a degree under the torque
PNG
media_image2.png
176
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kokubo discloses an input shaft and an output shaft (Fig. 10); the input shaft being coupled to a motor (611) and the output shaft being coupled to an actuator (300) and securing the output shaft (Fig. 1); causing the motor (611) to provide a torque for the input shaft to allow the gear to rotate by a degree under the torque “a desired rotational velocity and torque are transmitted to members connected downstream of the output shaft 350”; ¶0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field a platform that helps an industrial robot lock itself in place, to modify Giovannitti, to include a input shaft and a output shaft, as taught by Kokubo, for the benefit of providing a device to ensure smooth movements and reduce jamming and failure.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovannitti in view of KOKUBO in further view of Horigome.
Regarding claims 10-16, Giovannitti in view of Kokubo discloses securing the output shaft.
Giovannitti in view of Kokubo fails to explicitly discloses fixing platform, a baseplate, a securing component provided on the baseplate; a balancing weight coupled to a terminal arm of an industrial robot; and a cylinder provided on the baseplate and adjacent to the securing component having a plunger configured to move along a first direction to clamp the balancing weight when the balancing weight is coupled to the securing component.
Horigome discloses fixing platform (10), a baseplate (22), a securing component (20) provided on the baseplate (22); a balancing weight (202) coupled to a terminal arm of an industrial robot (200); and a cylinder (24) provided on the baseplate (22) and adjacent to the securing component (20) having a plunger (34) configured to move along a first direction to clamp the balancing weight (202) when the balancing weight (202) being coupled to the securing component (20).
Horigome further discloses the plunger (34) being actuated hydraulically (Fig. 17).
Horigome further discloses a base (20) coupled to a stationary body (204), the baseplate (22) being coupled to the base (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field a platform that helps an industrial robot lock itself in place, to modify Giovannitti in view of Kokubo, to include fixing platform, a baseplate, a securing component provided on the baseplate; a balancing weight coupled to a terminal arm of an industrial robot, as taught by Horigome, for the benefit of providing a that supports a reduction gear provided in a robot so as to be rotationally or linearly movable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights