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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to a lift device, classified in B66F11/046.
II. Claims 14-18, drawn to a robotic welding apparatus, classified in B23K37/0294.
III. Claims 19-20, drawn to a lift device, classified in B25J9/162.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related apparatus. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different design due to their mutually exclusive structures such as: Claim 1 requires a primary mover that Claim 14 does not, and Claim 14 requires a robotic welding apparatus that Claim 1 does not. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions I and III are directed to related apparatus. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the inventions as claimed have materially different design due to their mutually exclusive structures such as: Claim 1 requires a base assembly that Claim 18 does not, and Claim 18 requires a plurality of end effectors that Claim 1 does not. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions II and III are directed to related apparatus. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different design due to their mutually exclusive structures such as: Claim 14 requires robotic welding assembly that Claim 18 does not, and Claim 18 requires a plurality of end effectors that Claim 14 does not. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions as claimed have established a separate status in the art due to their divergent subject matter and classification. The search for the separate inventions requires mutually exclusive keyword and classification searches. There is also the potential for divergent prosecution between inventions.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Nicholas J Zepnick (Reg. 70238) on 6/5/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12110218B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application’s claims are a broader version of the parent patent claims in that Claim 1 of the parent such that the parent claims anticipate the claims of the applicant as compared in the table above.
18/893,380 (application)
US12110218B2 (reference)
1.A lift device comprising: a lift apparatus configured to raise and lower a robotic attachment; and a base assembly configured to support the lift apparatus, the base assembly including a primary mover configured to rotate one or more tractive elements coupled to the base assembly; wherein the robotic attachment comprises: a base; a primary robotic implement supported by the base; and a stabilizer bar coupled to the base and moveable independent of the base.
1. A lift device comprising:
a lift apparatus configured to raise and lower a robotic attachment; and
a base assembly configured to support the lift apparatus, the base assembly including a prime mover configured to rotate one or more wheels coupled to the base assembly;
wherein the robotic attachment comprises:
a base;
a primary robotic implement supported by the base and a secondary robotic implement supported by the base, wherein the primary robotic implement and the secondary robotic implement are moveable independent of each other; and
a stabilizer bar coupled to the base and moveable independent of the base.
2. The lift device of claim 1, wherein the robotic attachment further comprises a secondary robotic implement supported by the base.
1.
3. The lift device of claim 2, wherein the primary robotic implement and the secondary robotic implement are moveable independent of each other.
1.
4.The lift device of Claim 1, wherein the robotic attachment further comprises at least one stabilizer bar actuator configured to move the stabilizer bar relative to the base.
2. The lift device of claim 1, wherein the robotic attachment further comprises at least one stabilizer bar actuator configured to move the stabilizer bar relative to the base.
5. The lift device of claim 4, wherein the stabilizer bar is configured to engage with an external support to generate a stabilizing force for the robotic attachment.
3. The lift device of claim 2, wherein the stabilizer bar is configured to move between a first position and second position, and wherein in the second position the stabilizer bar is configured to engage with an external support to generate a stabilizing force for the robotic attachment.
6. The lift device of claim 5, wherein the stabilizer bar actuator is configured to adjust a position of the stabilizer bar to maintain the stabilizing force at or below a threshold value.
4. The lift device of claim 3, wherein the stabilizer bar actuator is configured to adjust a position of the stabilizer bar to maintain the stabilizing force at or below a threshold value.
7.The lift device of Claim 1, wherein the stabilizer bar comprises a bumper made of at least one of plastic, rubber, silicone, polyurethane.
5. The lift device of claim 1, wherein the stabilizer bar comprises a bumper made of at least one of plastic, rubber, silicone, polyurethane.
8.The lift device of Claim 1, wherein at least one of the lift apparatus or the base assembly include at least one of a power source or a pneumatic system, and wherein the robotic attachment is electrically or pneumatically coupled to the at least one of the power source or the pneumatic system, respectively.
6. The lift device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the lift apparatus or the base assembly include at least one of a power source or a pneumatic system, and wherein the robotic attachment is electrically or pneumatically coupled to the at least one of the power source or the pneumatic system, respectively.
9.The lift device of Claim 1, wherein the robotic attachment further comprise at least one visual indicator supported by the base, and wherein a processing circuit is further configured to control an aspect of the at least one visual indicator based on an operating mode of the robotic attachment.
7. The lift device of claim 1, wherein the robotic attachment further comprise at least one visual indicator supported by the base, and wherein a processing circuit is further configured to control an aspect of the at least one visual indicator based on an operating mode of the robotic attachment.
10.The lift device of Claim 1, wherein the primary robotic implement comprises a plurality of rotatable members, wherein the plurality of rotatable members comprises a first rotatable member rotatably coupled to the base and at least one intermediate rotatable member rotatably coupled between the first rotatable member and a second rotatable member.
8. The lift device of claim 1, wherein the primary robotic implement comprises a plurality of rotatable members, wherein the plurality of rotatable members comprises a first rotatable member rotatably coupled to the base and at least one intermediate rotatable member rotatably coupled between the first rotatable member and a second rotatable member.
11.The lift device of Claim 1, wherein the primary robotic implement includes an end effector with six axes of movement relative to the lift apparatus.
9. The lift device of claim 1, wherein the primary robotic implement includes an end effector with six axes of movement relative to the lift apparatus
12.The lift device of Claim 1, further comprising a control system communicably coupled with the primary robotic implement, wherein the control system comprises a processing circuit configured to position the primary robotic implement in a plurality of preset positions.
10. The lift device of claim 1, further comprising a control system communicably coupled with the primary robotic implement and the secondary robotic implement, wherein the control system comprises a processing circuit configured to position the primary robotic implement and the secondary robotic implement in a plurality of preset positions.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12110218B2 in view of Ulliman (US20190054615A1).
18/893,380 (application)
US12110218B2 (reference)
13.The lift device of Claim 11, wherein the primary robotic implement is detachably coupled to an end effector, further comprising: a control system communicably coupled with the primary robotic implement, wherein the robotic attachment further comprises at least one sensor configured to determine a position of an external object, wherein the control system comprises a processing circuit configured to control the primary robotic implement to engage the end effector with the external object.
12. The lift device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the primary robotic implement or the secondary robotic implement is detachably coupled to an end effector comprising at least one of a weld gun, a weld lead, or a needle scaler.
14. The lift device of claim 12, further comprising:
a control system communicably coupled with at least one of the primary robotic implement or the secondary robotic implement, wherein the robotic attachment further comprises at least one sensor configured to determine a position of an external object, and
wherein the control system comprises a processing circuit configured to control at least one of the primary robotic implement or the secondary robotic implement to engage the end effector with the external object.
The difference between the application’s Claim 13 and the patent’s Claim 14 is that the Application’s Claim 13 requires the features of Claim 11.
However, Ulliman teaches a lift device wherein the primary robotic implement includes an end effector (Ulliman, Item 126) with six axes of movement relative to the lift apparatus. (Ulliman Figure 3 shows a robot arm made up of multiple movable portions that allow for at least 6 degrees of movement of the end effector (126).)
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke (US20150107075A1).
Claim 1
Clarke teaches a lift device (Figure 7) comprising: a lift apparatus (29) configured to raise and lower a robotic attachment (inherent function of a manipulator (29)); and a base assembly configured to support the lift apparatus (service vehicle, 27), the base assembly including a primary mover (A service vehicle has a motor/transmission system that is a primary mover.) configured to rotate one or more tractive elements (Figure 7 shows the service vehicle has tires.) coupled to the base assembly; wherein the robotic attachment comprises: a base (Figure 27a/b shows a tool (197) that has a base portion where different portions extend from (191, 193, 195, 199).); a primary robotic implement supported by the base (195); and a stabilizer bar coupled to the base and moveable independent of the base (191a or 193).
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulliman (US20190054615A1) in view of Takagi (US20180355625A1).
Claim 1
Ulliman teaches a lift device (100) comprising: a lift apparatus (156) configured to raise and lower (¶0046 “A suitable lifting mechanism (e.g., a hydraulic cylinder) (not illustrated) is coupled to the tower boom 164 and the vehicle base 158 and is configured to drive a position of the tower boom 164 relative to the vehicle base 158 and affect tower lift functions (e.g., to pivot (lift and lower) the tower boom 164 relative to the vehicle base 158).”) a robotic attachment (102); and a base assembly (156) configured to support the lift apparatus (Figure 1), the base assembly including a primary mover (A boom lift vehicle has a motor/transmission system that is a primary mover.) configured to rotate one or more tractive elements (160) coupled to the base assembly (Figure 1); wherein the robotic attachment (102) comprises: a base (170); a primary robotic implement (102) supported by the base (170);
Ulliman does not explicitly disclose a stabilizer bar coupled to the base and moveable independent of the base.
However, Takagi teaches a stabilizer bar (34) coupled to the base (10A) and moveable independent of the base. (¶0091)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known stabilizer bar technique of Takagi to the work platform of Ulliman based on ¶0022 of Takagi: “the gondola is made stationary by the suction attachment device, works involved in the various construction works can be performed accurately and reliably.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known stabilizer bar technique of Takagi to the work platform of Ulliman because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the platform of Ulliman will incorporate stabilizer bar(s) that are adjustable relative to the platform thereby placing the robotic tool of Ulliman at a desired distance from the work surface and hold it there stably.
Claim 8
Ulliman in view of Takagi teaches the lift device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the lift apparatus or the base assembly include at least one of a power source (Ulliman, Item 198) or a pneumatic system, and wherein the robotic attachment is electrically or pneumatically coupled to the at least one of the power source or the pneumatic system, respectively. (Ulliman ¶0059 “…the apparatus 100 also includes at least one power supply 198 operatively coupled with the robot 102, the grinder tool 106 of the end effector 126, and/or the vacuum 182.”)
Claim 10
Ulliman in view of Takagi teaches the lift device of claim 1, wherein the primary robotic implement comprises a plurality of rotatable members (Ulliman, Items 138, 140-1, 140-2, 140-3, 140-4), wherein the plurality of rotatable members comprises a first rotatable member (Ulliman, Item 138) rotatably coupled to the base (Ulliman, Item 136) and at least one intermediate rotatable member (Ulliman Item 140-1) rotatably coupled between the first rotatable member (Ulliman, Item 138) and a second rotatable member (Ulliman Item 140-4).
Claim 11
Ulliman in view of Takagi teaches the lift device of claim 1, wherein the primary robotic implement includes an end effector (Ulliman, Item 126) with six axes of movement relative to the lift apparatus. (Ulliman Figure 3 shows a robot arm made up of multiple movable portions that allow for at least 6 degrees of movement of the end effector (126).)
Claim 12
Ulliman in view of Takagi teaches the lift device of claim 1, further comprising a control system (Ulliman, Item 144) communicably coupled with the primary robotic implement (Ulliman ¶0040 “the robot 102 also includes a controller 144 that communicates with the robot 102.”), wherein the control system comprises a processing circuit configured to position the primary robotic implement in a plurality of preset positions. (Ulliman ¶0040 “the controller 144 directs the robot 102 so that the end effector 126 is moved through at least one predetermined set of movements with respect to the concrete surface 302 and/or the seam 306.”)
Claim 13
Ulliman in view of Takagi teaches the lift device of claim 11, wherein the primary robotic implement is detachably coupled to an end effector (Ulliman ¶0029 “The end effector 126 is coupled to an end 128 (e.g., the last link) of the robot 102.”), further comprising: a control system communicably coupled with the primary robotic implement (Ulliman ¶0040 “the robot 102 also includes a controller 144 that communicates with the robot 102.”), wherein the robotic attachment further comprises at least one sensor (Ulliman, ¶0080 “In an example, the end effector 126 also includes at least one surface sensor 230 coupled to the compliance wrist 104.”) configured to determine a position of an external object (Ulliman, ¶0080 “The surface sensor 230 is configured to sense (e.g., detect or otherwise measure) a surface height of the concrete surface 302 (FIGS. 1 and 2).”), wherein the control system comprises a processing circuit configured to control the primary robotic implement to engage the end effector with the external object. (Ulliman ¶0040 “the controller 144 directs the robot 102 so that the end effector 126 is moved through at least one predetermined set of movements with respect to the concrete surface 302 and/or the seam 306.”)
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulliman (US20190054615A1) in view of Takagi (US20180355625A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Allen (US6507163B1).
Claim 2
Ulliman in view of Takagi teaches the lift device of claim 1.
Ulliman in view of Takagi does not disclose wherein the robotic attachment further comprises a secondary robotic implement supported by the base.
However, Allen teaches wherein the robotic attachment further comprises a secondary robotic implement supported by the base. (Figure 1 teaches a plurality of robotic elements (21, 23) connected to the base (17).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known multiple robotic elements technique of Allen to the work system of Ulliman based on Figure 1 of Allen, which shows a plurality of robots performing operations on the same work surface, increasing the speed of completion of the task.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known multiple robotic elements technique of Allen to the work system of Ulliman because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the system of Ulliman will use more than one robot to increase speed of work execution.
Claim 3
Ulliman in view of Takagi and Allen teaches the lift device of claim 2, wherein the primary robotic implement and the secondary robotic implement are moveable independent of each other. (Allen Col. 5, Lines 53-60 teach the left and right robots are controlled independently.)
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulliman (US20190054615A1) in view of Takagi (US20180355625A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Xiao (CN114086754B)(See attached machine translation of the description).
Claim 4
Ulliman in view of Takagi teaches the lift device of claim 1,
Ulliman in view of Takagi does not disclose wherein the robotic attachment further comprises at least one stabilizer bar actuator configured to move the stabilizer bar relative to the base.
However, Xiao teaches at least one stabilizer bar actuator configured to move the stabilizer bar relative to the base. (Figure 2 teaches actuators (manipulator, 2) that are used for moving clamps (21) (that can be suction grippers (Line 164)) in contact with the wall (Line 167).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known actuators for the stabilizing elements technique of Xiao to the stabilizer bar(s) of Ulliman in view of Takagi in order to provide an adjustable actuator for the stabilizer bar (Function of the actuators of Xiao) that cooperates with positional information sensors (See Xiao Lines 244-246)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known actuators for the stabilizing elements technique of Xiao to the stabilizer bar(s) of Ulliman in view of Takagi because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the stabilizer bars of Ulliman in view of Takagi will incorporate stabilizer bar(s) actuators that are adjustable automatically in order to adapt to different distances between the work surface and the platform.
Claim 5
Ulliman in view of Takagi and Xiao teaches the lift device of claim 4, wherein the stabilizer bar is configured to engage with an external support to generate a stabilizing force for the robotic attachment. (Takagi, ¶0022 “the gondola is coupled to the outer surface of the structure by the suction attachment device attached to the outer surface of the structure, the gondola does not swing but the gondola can be made stationary in the air, whereby the attitude of the gondola in the air can be made stable.”)
Claim 6
Ulliman in view of Takagi and Xiao teaches the lift device of claim 5, wherein the stabilizer bar actuator is configured to adjust a position of the stabilizer bar to maintain the stabilizing force at or below a threshold value. (Xiao Lines 72-73 teach a pressure sensor that is operable to sense the pressure applied by the claw, which is the analogous part of Xiao that contacts the external support. These pressure sensors allow the combined system of Ulliman in view of Takagi and Xiao to perform the claimed functional limitation.)
Claim 7
Ulliman in view of Takagi and Xiao teaches the lift device of claim 1, wherein the stabilizer bar comprises a bumper (Takagi, Item 42) made of at least one of plastic, rubber (Takagi, ¶0078), silicone, polyurethane.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulliman (US20190054615A1) in view of Takagi (US20180355625A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Li (WO2019100759A1)(See attached machine translation of the description).
Claim 9
Ulliman in view of Takagi teaches the lift device of claim 1.
Ulliman in view of Takagi does not disclose wherein the robotic attachment further comprise at least one visual indicator supported by the base, and wherein a processing circuit is further configured to control an aspect of the at least one visual indicator based on an operating mode of the robotic attachment.
However, Li teaches the robotic attachment (100) further comprise at least one visual indicator (150/180) supported by the base (110), and wherein a processing circuit (controller, 140) is further configured to control an aspect of the at least one visual indicator based on an operating mode of the robotic attachment. (See Lines 129-138 “The indicator 150 is configured to display a respective color based on a control signal received from the controller 140, or configured to turn a plurality of indications on and off in an order corresponding to an operating state of the display robot arm 120 based on the control signal.”)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known indication lights technique of Li to the robot actuator of Ulliman in view of Takagi in based on Lines 134-138 of Li “by setting more indicator lights, different working states of the robot arm 120 can be displayed correspondingly through the switching timing of the plurality of indicator lights or different colors, such as the power on/off state of the robot arm 120, the start-stop state, or Working mode status, etc.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known indication lights technique of Li to the robot actuator of Ulliman in view of Takagi because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the robot of Ulliman in view of Takagi will include indication lights to allow observers to determine the working state of the robot arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20180194603A1
2015-01-27
¶0039 “The front edge of the sliding platform extension is equipped with protecting bumpers (12) to avoid damages on the aircraft skin.” See Figure 2.
US20200087128A1
2019-11-25
¶0042 “A buffer 124 is attached to the corner part so as to cover the corner part from above and below. The buffer 124 is an elastic material such as sponge wrapped in a sheet or the like.”
US20170233232A1
2014-06-23
¶0094 “FIG. 4 also depicts an extendable platform 51.”” the platform 51 may also be configured to have additional proximity sensor elements 112 and/or impact sensor elements embedded in additional padding mounted to the platform.” The reference teaches an extendable platform that has a padding mounted thereon.
US3670849A
1970-10-23
Figure 2-4 shows an inflatable bumper (41) that has the inflation controlled by an actuator (58) that is responsive to force being applied “Thus, when the platform and boom assembly is being operated by the workman and either of the bladder tubes 43 and 50 engage an object, the external force on either bladder will in crease the pressure on the air switch or air operated actuator 58 and if this pressure increase is of sufficient value, the switch 58 will be activated operating the circuit control switch 59 to break the supply circuits to the power means 39. When the external force deforming either of the bladder tubes is removed, the circuit returns to normal position restoring the power connection to the power means 39.”
US3243123A
1963-02-21
Figure 1 teaches a bumper (132) on a cage (E) on the end of a boom (76).
US20200262011A1
2020-05-04
Figure 1 teaches a robotic welding system (100) mounted to the end of a boom arm.
US6507163B1
1993-12-20
Figure 1 teaches a plurality of robots (21) on a base (17) at the end of a lift arm.
CN114086754B
2022-02-25
Figures 1-2 teach actuators (2) that are used to stabilize a working platform (1).
US10801220B2
2016-12-09
Figure 1 teaches raised frames (4, 5, 6) that are stabilized using a bar (7, 8) structure that extends from the frames.
CN114016724A
2022-02-08
Figure 1 teaches a bar (19) that has actuators (springs, 18) that control the force applied by the bar. The bar is used to absorb impacts of the base structure against a structure during use.
US20120168252A1
2010-12-29
Figure 1 teaches stabilizing bars (210, 310) that are actuated (¶0047 “However, one with skill in the art will appreciate that the gripping arm adjustors (205, 305) may comprise virtually any type of actuating device, including mechanical actuators, hydraulic actuators, or electro-mechanical actuators, just to name a few.”)
US20170087731A1
2016-09-08
Figure 3 shows a light (34) on a robot arm (14) for conveying the state of the end effector (¶0018)
US9375841B1
2014-05-28
Figure 1 teaches a robot arm having lights (116, 118, 120) to provide “visual feedback on the robotic device 100 at the joints 110, 108, and 114 and about the joints 110, 108, and 114.”
WO2019100759A1
2018-08-08
Figures 1-4 teach lights (180) on the base (110) of a robot arm. “The indicator 150 is configured to display a respective color based on a control signal received from the controller 140, or configured to turn a plurality of indications on and off in an order corresponding to an operating state of the display robot arm 120 based on the control signal. “
US20210061629A1
2020-02-20
Figure 3 teaches a bumper (25) of an AGV that is extendable using an actuator (bumper extension/contraction driver 30). ¶0025 “The bumper 25 is formed of a resin material”.
US20170129133A1
2015-11-05
¶0049 “The purpose of this model is to decrease printing times by increasing the amount of extruders in the form of robotic arms (108), and therefore increasing the amount of material that can be deposited at the same time, thus decreasing build times considerably.” The reference teaches increasing the amount of manipulators/robot arms increases the productivity.
US20130119033A1
2011-11-11
Figure 1 teaches a welding robot system (100) that comprises a robot on a base (108) connected to a lift.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights