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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-5 as filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
(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 1,2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishizuka et al (US Patent document 20210039264, hereinafter “Ishizuka”)
Regarding Claim 1, Ishizuka discloses in figure 1 and 0053-0064
A robot (10) comprising:
a robot hand (16) attached to a distal end portion of a robot arm (14g); and
a control unit (12) configured to control each operation of the robot arm and the robot hand to perform a work on an object (28), wherein
the robot hand includes: a tool for attaching and detaching (16d) a fastener (24) to and from the object; and a force sensor (18), and
Ishizuka further details in figure 14, control step S2, and 0106-0107
the control unit displaces the tool from a phase in which the fastener is not capable of being attached to and detached from the object to a phase in which the fastener is capable of being attached to and detached from the object based on a sensor output of the force sensor while applying a pressing force by the tool to the fastener supported by the object.
Ishizuka pertains to a robotic nut runner with learning control and details a “feeling-around” operation (control step S2, figure 17) where the control unit displaces the tool (socket 16c) from a phase (fit) based on the measured contact force Fz between the fastener and the tool.
Regarding Claim 2, Ishizuka discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses in figures 16 and 20 and 0112-0123
the fastener is a bolt (24), and
the control unit swingably drives the robot hand to tighten the bolt by a defined tightening torque based on the sensor output of the force sensor in a state where the phase of the tool is matched with the phase in which the bolt is capable of being attached to and detached from the object.
Ishizuka details that the control unit drives the nut runner to tighten the bolt. The defined tightening torque is a learned process based on the force sensor output (example force profile in figure 20). The learned profile is different for different state of phases. Fig 16 displays multiple torque profiles with the “solid line is a result obtained in a state where the socket 16c and the bolt 24 are fitted together, and the dashed line is a result obtained in a state where phase deviation occurs” (0112).
Regarding Claim 5, Ishizuka discloses the operation method in figure 18 and 0126-0135
A robot operation method, comprising:
applying a pressing force by a tool provided in a robot hand to a fastener supported by an object (S11);
displacing the tool to a phase in which the fastener is capable of being attached to and detached from the object based on a sensor output of a force sensor provided in the robot hand while applying the pressing force (S16-S22); and
swingably driving the robot hand (S23).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizuka in view of Yasushi and Atsushi (Japanese patent document JP2010111349, hereinafter “Yasushi”).
Regarding Claim 3, Ishizuka discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses in figures 16 and 20 and 0112-0123
the fastener is a bolt, and
the control unit swingably drives the robot hand to loosen the bolt in a state where the phase of the tool is matched with the phase in which the bolt is capable of being attached to and detached from the object.
While figure 1 of Ishizuka indicates that the drive shaft 16b can rotate clockwise or counterclockwise, Ishizuka does not specifically teach the control of loosening the bolt. However, Yasushi teaches to loosen the bolt.
Yasushi pertains to a robotic system to remove an automobile door that is affixed with bolts and details in 0005 a nut runner 71 which rotates the socket 711 to remove a bolt 12. Additionally included are a movement distance detection unit (encoder 34 and a bolt removal unit 43), and a control unit which controls “fitting the socket to the bolt, rotating the socket by a predetermined number of rotations in a direction of loosening the bolt by the rotation unit, and measuring a retreat distance of the socket by the rotation of the bolt by the movement distance detection unit; and when the measured retreat distance is equal to or more than a predetermined distance, it is determined that the bolt is detached.” Thus, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the bolt removal technique of Yasushi with the device of Ishizuka to either tighten or loosen a fastener.
Regarding Claim 4, Ishizuka teaches
A robot system comprising:
the robot according to claim 1; and
as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Ishizuka does not teach the object conveyance robot. However, Yasushi teaches in figure 1, figure 11, and 0009
an object conveyance robot (20) configured to detachably convey the object (11).
The robotic door removal system of Yasushi includes a double-arm robot 20 that holds the door 11 from above and below while a single-arm robot 30 removes the bolt 12, and a control device 40 as a control unit that controls the double-arm robot 20 and the single-arm robot 30. Furthermore, figure 11 depicts “a perspective view showing a state in which the door is conveyed by the double-arm robot of the door removing system according to the embodiment.” Thus, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the object conveyance robot of Yasushi with the bolt tightening/loosening robot of Ishizuka to detachably convey an object once the fastener has been removed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656