DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed August 8, 2024 via preliminary amendment. Claims 1-12 are currently pending, of which claims 3-6 and 10-12 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “Method of managing…” and this appears to be a typographical error, missing an article of speech. The claim should read “A method
Claim 2 recites “Method as in claim 1…” and this appears to be a typographical error, missing an article of speech. The claim should read “The method Claims 3-10 recite similar language lacking the requisite article of speech, and are objected to for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 11 recites “Control unit (100)…”, and this appears to be a typographical error, missing an article of speech. The claim should read “A control
Claim 12 recites “Collaborative work cell (10)…”, and this appears to be a typographical error, missing an article of speech. The claim should read “A collaborative
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 10-12 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.
Claim 10 recites “the second operation” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim.
Claim 11 recites “Control unit (100)”, “a user interface (14)”, “an automatic operator device (15)”, “a collaborative work cell (10)”, “at least one work plane (12)”, and “a tool store (13)”. Each of these are introduced in claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, and by re-introducing them in claim 11 it is unclear if these are meant to be the same objects or new, separate objects.
Claim 12 recites “Collaborative work cell (10)”, “at least one work plane (12)”, “a tool store (13)”, “a control unit (100)”, “an automatic operator device (15)”, and “a user interface (14)”. Each of these are introduced in claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, and by re-introducing them in claim 12 it is unclear if these are meant to be the same objects or new, separate objects.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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 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 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinnunen (W.O. 2019/081812; retrieved from IDS filed August 8, 2024).
As per claim 1, Kinnunen teaches method of managing a collaborative work cell (10) carried out by a control unit (100) thereof to which a user interface (14) and an automatic operator device (15) are connected, and comprising at least one work plane (12) and a tool store (13) (See Kinnunen Fig. 4 and p. 23:16-35 to 24:1-14: receive user commands for execution with command unit and memory unit; p. 25:5-9: robot with tool rack and work base), characterized in that the method comprises the following steps:
receiving (S100) a first input comprising an indication on a type of operation to execute, wherein the first input is entered by an operator on the user interface (14) (See Kinnunen Fig. 12 and pp. 23:16-34 to 24:1-14 and 28:17-34 to 29:1-10: user interface that can receive operator commands based on selected products);
controlling (S150) said automatic operator device (15) to execute an operation on the basis of the indication on the type of operation to execute comprised in the first input (See Kinnunen Fig. 12 and p. 23:16-34 to 24:1-14 and 28:17-34 to 29:1-10: in response to selected product, robot performs requisite operations to form said product).
As per claim 2, Kinnunen further teaches method as in claim 1, characterized in that the step of controlling said automatic operating device (15) to execute the operation comprises: approaching (S111) the tool store (13) of the collaborative work cell; selecting (S113) a tool comprised in said tool store (13) on the basis of the indication comprised in the first input; installing (S115) the tool on said device (15); executing (S117) the operation using the selected tool (See Kinnunen Fig. 12 and pp. 28:17-34 to 29:1-10: multiple operations performed by robot, including attaching and detaching tools used in specific operations, and attaching new tools for next operations in the process).
As per claim 3, Kinnunen further teaches method as in claim 1, characterized in that said method comprises, during the step (S117) of executing the operation, the step of controlling said automatic operating device (15) so that it selects the type of operation to be executed on the basis of the indication on the type of operation to be executed comprised in the first input and on the basis of working information contained in a memory unit (111) comprised in the control unit (100) (See Kinnunen Fig. 4 and pp. 23:16-35 to 24:1-14: receive user commands for execution with command unit and memory unit).
As per claim 4, Kinnunen further teaches method as in claim 2, characterized in that, when the step (S117) of executing the operation is completed, the method comprises the steps of controlling said device (15) to: approach (S119) said tool store (13) of said work cell (10); uninstall (S121) the tool and return the tool in said store (13), and terminate (S160) the execution of the operation (See Kinnunen Fig. 12 and pp. 28:17-34 to 29:1-10: multiple operations performed by robot, including attaching and detaching tools used in specific operations, and attaching new tools for next operations in the process).
As per claim 5, Kinnunen further teaches method as in claim 2, characterized in that the method comprises, during the step (S117) of executing the operation, the step of controlling said device (15) to: approach (S119) said store (13) of said work cell (10); uninstall (S121) the tool and return the tool in said store (13); select (S131) a second tool from said store (13) and install the second tool; continue (S117) the execution of the operation using the second tool (See Kinnunen Fig. 12 and pp. 28:17-34 to 29:1-10: multiple operations performed by robot, including attaching and detaching tools used in specific operations, and attaching new tools for next operations in the process).
As per claim 6, Kinnunen further teaches method as in claim 1, characterized in that the step of controlling said device (15) to execute the operation comprises: receiving (S133) a second input; controlling (S250) said device (15) on the basis of the second input (See Kinnunen p. 26:25-32: limit switches can control emergency shutoff).
As per claim 10, Kinnunen further teaches method as in claim 1, characterized in that the operation being executed and the second operation are one of either an operation of working an object positioned on at least one said work plane (12) or an operation of calibration of said device (15) (See Kinnunen pp. 13:30-34 to 14:1-13: calibration commands based on selected set of coordinates separate from operations to form the end product).
As per claim 11, the claim is directed to a control unit that is configured to carry out the method as in claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Kinnunen teaches control unit (100), to which there are connected a user interface (14) and an automatic operator device (15), comprising a memory unit (111), of a collaborative work cell (10) comprising at least one work plane (12), a tool store (13), characterized in that said control unit (100) is configured to carry out the method (See Kinnunen Fig. 4 and p. 23:16-35 to 24:1-14: receive user commands for execution with command unit and memory unit).
As per claim 12, the claim is directed to a collaborative work cell that is configured to carry out the method as in claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Furthermore, Kinnunen teaches collaborative work cell (10) comprising at least one work plane (12), a tool store (13), a control unit (100), comprising a memory unit (111), to which there are connected an automatic operator device (15) and a user interface (14) characterized in that said control unit (100) is configured to carry out the method (See Kinnunen Fig. 4 and p. 23:16-35 to 24:1-14: receive user commands for execution with command unit and memory unit).
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnunen as applied above, and further in view of Sjoberg (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0128079)
As per claim 7, Kinnunen further teaches method as in claim 6, characterized in that the second input is entered by an operator [on the user interface (14)] connected to said control unit (100) (See Kinnunen p. 26:25-32: limit switches can control emergency shutoff, which stops the operation).
However, while Kinnunen teaches emergency stoppage as the second input, Kinnunen does not explicitly teach that this input is entered on the user interface.
Sjoberg teaches that the second input of Kinnunen can be entered on the user interface (14) (See Sjoberg paras. [0008] and [0035-36]: operator device can include an emergency stop button).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the emergency stoppage of Kinnunen with the button of Sjoberg. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose industrial robot safety systems and emergency stoppage and Sjoberg further enhances the system of Kinnunen by increasing the safety by introducing additional ways to prevent injury, allowing for not just an automatic feature, but a manual feature that could act as a redundant safety measure.
As per claim 8, Kinnunen/Sjoberg further teaches method as in claim 7, characterized in that the step of controlling said device (15) on the basis of the second input comprises the control of said device (15) so that it terminates (S160) the execution of the operation (See Kinnunen p. 26:25-32: limit switches can control emergency shutoff, which stops the operation).
As per claim 9, Kinnunen/Sjoberg further teaches method as in claim 8, characterized in that the step of controlling said device (15) on the basis of the second input comprises controlling said device (15) to execute (S117) another operation that is different from the operation being executed (See Kinnunen p. 26:25-32: limit switches can control emergency shutoff, which stops the operation. The stoppage command is a different command/operation from the regular production operations/commands).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights