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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23 and 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 presents a method claim. It is unclear if applicant intends for this method claim to depend from the apparatus claim 1 or if applicant intends for claim 23 to be an independent claim. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 27 depends on claim 23 and is likewise rejected in a similar manner.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 26 presents an article manufacturing method claim. It is unclear if applicant intends for this article manufacturing method claim to depend from the apparatus claim 1 or if applicant intends for claim 26 to be an independent claim. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al [JP 7661257 B2].
As for claim 24, Kurata discloses a drive device (3) comprising:
a driving portion for driving a robot including at least one joint connecting two links (Fig 1; page 2, lines 28-31, The robot arm 10 has storage sections for storing the drive mechanisms of the robot arm 10, which have substantially the same structure, in the first swing joint section 22, the second swing joint section 24, and the third swing joint section 26. FIG. 2 shows the drive mechanism 4 stored in the storage section 3 of the second swing joint section 24.), wherein the joint includes a light source mounted on a substrate and a diffusion unit configured to diffuse light from the light source (page 3, line 38 – page 4, line 12; The indicator 6 is attached to the outer circumferential surface of the first pivot joint 21 in a form housed in the groove 5. The indicator 6 includes a light-emitting structure 7, a diffusion section 8, and a display panel 9. The light-emitting structure 7 has a base material 71 and a plurality of light-emitting units 72. The base material 71 is a flexible tape-like plate material, for example a flexible printed circuit board. The plurality of light-emitting units 72 are arranged at a predetermined interval from each other on one surface of the base material 71. As shown in FIG. 5, each of the plurality of light-emitting units 72 is composed of a light-emitting diode (LED) equipped with a red light-emitting element 721, a green light-emitting element 722, and a blue light-emitting element 723, which are the three primary colors of light. The light-emitting structure 7 is attached to the side of the base material 71 opposite to the side on which the light-emitting units 72 are arranged, along the side peripheral surface 51 of the groove 5. As a result, the multiple light-emitting units 72 are arranged in a line in the circumferential direction H1 along the side peripheral surface 51 of the groove 5 so as to face the cover member 5A within the groove 5. When arranged within the groove 5, the multiple light-emitting units 72 are operated by the control of the control board 45 connected via the wire harness 73. The diffusion section 8 is positioned within the groove 5 so as to be spaced downward from the multiple light-emitting sections 72 in the groove width direction H3 and outside the coverage area of the cover member 5A. The diffusion section 8 is positioned so that its inner surface in the radial direction H2 abuts against the side peripheral surface 51 of the groove 5 and its lower surface in the groove width direction H3 abuts against the bottom surface 52 of the groove 5. The diffusion section 8 diffuses the light emitted from the multiple light-emitting sections 72.), and a space in which a wiring for driving the robot is stored is provided between the substrate and the diffusion unit (page 3, lines 1-5, As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, a wire harness 73 is arranged inside the robot arm 10 to electrically connect the control board 45 that controls the light emission to the multiple light emitting units 72. This makes it possible to protect the wire harness 73 compared to when the wire harness 73 is arranged on the outside of the robot arm 10, and also makes it easier to set the wiring path of the wire harness 73 so as not to interfere with the operation of the robot arm 10.). Kurata does not explicitly state the wiring is stored between the diffusion unit and the substrate. However, Figure 2 and the text shows that the wiring harness should be internal to the joint in a manner to protect the wires during operation of the robot arm. Kurata makes use of the space adjacent the diffusion unit. Having these teachings on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Kurata to use available spacing at or around the substrate and diffusing unit for arranging the wire inside the arm of the robot.
Claim 25 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 24 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses robot devices having indicators that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685