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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 25.1.
Figures 4-18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(m) for using shading that will not reproduce well. Applicant should use line shading so the figures can be accurately reproduced.1 Alternatively, Applicant should remove all shading and simply provide line drawings.
Figures 19-21 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) because not all of the drawings have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Specifically, most of the figures do not use dense or clean enough lines to enable reproduction of the drawings. Applicant should go over each figure and ensure the lines are of substantial weight and clarity to permit adequate reproduction.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites: “in which a cable portion (18.1) is mounted so as to be extendable in an extension direction (A) . . . a bearing arrangement (26) which is designed to guide the first connection body (25.1) relative to the second connection body (25.2) in a first rotational degree of freedom (D1) which is oriented perpendicular to the extension direction (A) and to support it in a forcibly guided manner in a second rotational degree of freedom (D2) which is oriented perpendicular to both the extension direction (A) and the first rotational degree of freedom (D1) depending on the movement of the first connection body (8) about the first rotational degree of freedom (D1).”
The confusion issue here is that the extension direction (A) is defined as the direction in which a cable portion (18.1) is mounted to be extendable. This is confusing for two reasons:
First, the extension direction is based on a portion of a cable, where the cable appears to be flexible. The flexibility of the cable portion would define the extension direction to also be flexible and possibly changing. In short, the extension direction is not defined by a rigid structural element, such as the receiving space of the cable routing device, but rather a non-rigid cable portion. This makes the extension direction something that is not clearly determinable.
Second, even if the extension direction was defined by the receiving space of the cable routing device, the extension direction (A) would not be perpendicular to the second rotational degree of freedom (D2). For example, note that in Figure 6 and 9 of the instant application, that the cable routing device can move to point in a direction where the extension direction (of either the cable portion or the receiving space) is pointed in a direction that is not perpendicular to either D2 or D1. In short, it appears that the movement ability of the cable routing device allows for positions of the extension direction which are not perpendicular to D1 and D2. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
For the purposes of examination, the extension direction is interpreted as being something determinable and defined by the internal elongated receiving space and the longitudinal direction of that space.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first connection body (8)" in the second to last line, rather than reciting “the first connection body (25.1)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,431,018 to Okada et al. (Okada).
PNG
media_image1.png
659
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Okada discloses a supporting device for a cable routing device (2b or 8b) of a robot arm, wherein the cable routing device (2b or 8b) comprises a receiving space (the internal passage within 2b or 8b), in which a cable portion (4) is mounted so as to be extendable in an extension direction (See Annotated Fig. A), for supporting the cable routing device (2b or 8b) on the robot arm, said supporting device comprising: - a first connection body (See Annotated Fig. A) which is designed to rigidly connect the first connection body of the supporting device to a cable routing device (2b or 8b), - a second connection body (See Annotated Fig. A) which is designed to rigidly connect the second connection body of the supporting device to a link (See Annotated Fig. A) of a robot arm, and - a bearing arrangement (See Annotated Fig. A) which is designed to guide the first connection body (See Annotated Fig. A) relative to the second connection body (See Annotated Fig. A) in a first rotational degree of freedom (H) which is oriented perpendicular to the extension direction (See Annotated Fig. A) and to support it in a forcibly guided manner in a second rotational degree of freedom (F) which is oriented perpendicular to both the extension direction (See Annotated Fig. A) and the first rotational degree of freedom (H) depending on the movement of the first connection body (See Annotated Fig. A) about the first rotational degree of freedom (H).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 11040457, 9138902.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See 37 CFR 1.84(m).