DETAILED ACTIONS
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/934,616, filed on 11/01/2024.
Claims 1-22 have been examined are presently pending.
Definition of terms that may be used for citation purpose:
page = pg., paragraph = p., column = col., line = ln., for example page 5 = pg.5
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(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 5 recites the limitation "The vertical load balancer" in the preamble of claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prosecution, examiner will assume “a single load manipulator”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “the load balancer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Pub 2025/0368476. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are claiming the same invention with minor modifications.
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 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. US9,850,108 B2; in view of Murayama US2009/0216378 A1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8. Gao discloses a single load manipulator comprising: an articulating assembly (see at least col.4 ln.5, movement device 22 includes four-bar mechanisms 24 and is configured to be a two degree-of-freedom articulated mechanism (X and Y). A two degree-of-freedom articulated mechanism is shown in FIGS. 1 and 3) adapted to be engaged with a support mechanism; (see at least Fig.4 and col.5 ln.35, an articulated joint 61 may extend from one or both of the tubes 60 and further extend in an X and/or Y direction which is further offset from the Z axis 21.) *Examiner interprets joint 61 is an example of a support mechanism a support assembly operatively engaged with the articulating assembly (see at least col.5 ln.30, a pair of tubes 60 extend from the second four-bar mechanism 24b, along the X axis 17.), wherein the support assembly is adapted to engage and secure a load thereto (see at least col.5 ln.35, The payload 12 is suspended from at least one of these tubes 60 and is offset from the Z axis 21.); wherein the articulating assembly is operable to articulate the support assembly, and thereby the load (see at least col.5 ln.35, an articulated joint 61 may extend from one or both of the tubes 60 and further extend in an X and/or Y direction which is further offset from the Z axis 21. The payload 12 may extend from the articulated joint 61 at an attachment point 84. The payload 12 may be offset from the attachment point). Gao doesn’t’ explicitly disclose wherein the load is articulated between a first position and a second position; and wherein the first position and the second position are arranged at an angle to one another.
However, Murayama discloses a power assist apparatus with a brake control that does articulate the load between a first position and a second position; and wherein the first position and the second position are arranged at an angle to one another. (see at least Fig. 7A-7C, various roll states where the position of the load are locked in angular positions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movement system for a payload as disclosed by Gao, with the controlled brake mechanism for positioning a load as disclosed by Murayama, improve the operability and efficiency in placement of the load. (see at least col.1 ln.25)
Regarding Claim 2. The combination of Gao and Murayama discloses all the limitations of the single load manipulator according to claim 1. Gao discloses, further comprising: an attachment mechanism operatively engaged with the articulating assembly, wherein the attachment member is adapted to suspend the articulating assembly from the support mechanism. (see Fig.2, at least, the cart 62 is configured for moving the bridge crane)
Regarding Claim 3. The combination of Gao and Murayama discloses all the limitations of the single load manipulator according to claim 2. Gao discloses further, wherein the attachment mechanism comprises: a trolley adapted to engage the support mechanism; a beam operatively engageable with the trolley and nonremoveably engaged with the articulating assembly; and wherein the trolley is movable along the support beam. (see at least Fig.2 at least, The cart 62 is configured for moving the bridge crane 18 and/or the trolley 20 along the respective X axis 17 and Y axis 19 in response to the application of a force F to the payload 12.)
Regarding Claim 4. The combination of Gao and Murayama discloses all the limitations of the single load manipulator according to claim 3. Gao discloses further, wherein the trolley further comprises: a pair of plates that are spaced apart from one another (see at least Fig. 3 and col.4 ln.20, a first base link 36a and a second base link 36b. The first base link 36a and the second base link 36b are disposed in spaced and parallel relationship to one another.); an attachment link operably engaged with the pair of plates; and wherein the attachment link is adapted to engage the trolley to the support mechanism. (see at least Fig.3 and col.4 ln.25, first joint 40 and second joint 42 therebetween.)
Regarding Claim 5. The vertical load balancer. The combination of Gao and Murayama discloses all the limitations of the single load manipulator according to claim according to claim 4. Gao discloses further, wherein a center of gravity of the single load manipulator and the load, together, remains substantially aligned with a vertical axis extending through the attachment link during the articulation of the support assembly by the articulating assembly. (see at least col.1 ln.40, There are partially motorized versions of overhead bridge cranes that are displaced manually along horizontal axes and rotated manually along the vertical axis by a human operator, but that include a motorized hoist in order to cope with gravity along the vertical direction)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. US 9,850,108 B2; in view of Murayama US2009/0216378 A1; and in further view of Geenen US2025/0326590.
Regarding Claim 6. The combination of Gao and Murayama discloses all the limitations of the single load manipulator according to claim according to claim 1. Gao discloses further, wherein the articulating assembly comprises a linkage assembly (see at least Abstract, at least one of a first and a second kinematic link about a respective axis of rotation.). Gao doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the linkage assembly comprises: a first arm and a first actuator, wherein the first actuator is selectively pivotable relative to the first arm.
However, Geenen discloses a lifting device for manipulating a load wherein the linkage assembly comprises: a first arm and a first actuator, wherein the first actuator is selectively pivotable relative to the first arm. (see at least p.11, A drive and/or actuator can be assigned to the joints. The multiaxial kinematic mechanism according to the invention can comprise the manipulator arm. That is to say that the manipulator arm can be part of the multiaxial kinematic mechanism.) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kinematic links as disclosed by Gao with the drive actuator assigned to the joints as taught by Geenen to improve precision and mobility of the payload.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. US 9,850,108 B2; in view of Murayama US2009/0216378 A1; and in further view of Tanaka et al. US2008/0213077 A1.
Regarding Claim 7. The combination of Gao and Murayama discloses all the limitations of the single load manipulator according to claim according to claim 1. Gao doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the load balancer and the load, together, have a center of gravity, and wherein the center of gravity is translated during the articulation of the support assembly by the articulating assembly.
However, Tanaka discloses an articulated robot wherein the load balancer and the load, together, have a center of gravity, and wherein the center of gravity is translated during the articulation of the support assembly by the articulating assembly. (see at least p.110, the center of gravity of the arm assembly 20 by G, and the total mass of the arm assembly 20 by H. For the sake of brevity, the center G of gravity and the total mass H cover the workpiece W and the end effector 59.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Gao and Murayama with the translating of the center of gravity for both the load and the load balancer (i.e. end effector) as taught by Tanka to improve the balancing of the system.
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. US 9,850,108 B2; in view of Murayama US2009/0216378 A1; and in further view of YU et al. CN104742280 A.
Regarding Claim 9. The combination of Gao and Murayama discloses all the limitations of the single load balancer according to claim 8. Gao doesn’t explicitly disclose and embodiment, wherein the support assembly comprises: a first ring and a second ring opposed and spaced a distance apart from one another; wherein the first ring is engaged with the articulating assembly; wherein the second ring is adapted to engage the load; and a third ring interposed between the first ring and the second ring.
However, YU discloses a tire grasping machine wherein the support assembly comprises: a first ring and a second ring opposed and spaced a distance apart from one another; wherein the first ring is engaged with the articulating assembly; wherein the second ring is adapted to engage the load; and a third ring interposed between the first ring and the second ring. (see at least Fig.2, multiple rings 3.1, 3.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gao and Murayama with the multi-ring grasping machine as disclosed by YU to better manipulate the heavy load when the use is for a tire.
Regarding Claim 10. The combination of Gao, Murayama and YU disclose all the limitations of the single load balancer according to claim 9. YU discloses further, wherein the support assembly further comprises: a plurality of rollers rotatably mounted between an inner surface of the first ring and an inner surface of the second ring; wherein the plurality of rollers is configured to engage the third ring; wherein the first ring and the second ring are fixed relative to one another; and wherein the first and second rings and the third ring are rotatable relative to one another. (see Fig.3, a plurality of roller shaft of the lifting frame comprises a rectangular frame and installed in the rectangular frame, each of said roller shaft group comprises a roller shaft, a group of rollers mounted on the roller shaft and the roller shaft is fixed on the rectangular frame of the end cover, the end cover is an eccentric ring.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gao and Murayama with the multi-ring grasping machine as disclosed by YU to better manipulate the heavy load when the use is for a tire.
Regarding Claim 11. The combination of Gao, Murayama and YU disclose all the limitations of the single load balancer according to claim 10. YU discloses further, wherein the plurality of rollers is complementary to a peripheral edge of the third ring. (see Fig.7) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gao and Murayama with the multi-ring grasping machine as disclosed by YU to better manipulate the heavy load when the use is for a tire.
Regarding Claim 12. The combination of Gao, Murayama and YU disclose all the limitations of the single load balancer according to claim 10. YU discloses further, wherein the third ring is rotatable through 360 degrees along an axis extending through a center point of the support assembly. (see Fig.2) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gao and Murayama with the multi-ring grasping machine as disclosed by YU to better manipulate the heavy load when the use is for a tire.
Regarding Claim 14. The combination of Gao, Murayama and YU disclose all the limitations of the single load balancer according to claim 10. Yu discloses further, wherein at least one of the first ring and the second ring comprises: a peripheral edge and a pair of opposing flanges extending radially outwardly from the peripheral edge. (see at least Fig.2, the edge of the rotating disc is embedded in the limiting groove.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gao and Murayama with the multi-ring grasping machine as disclosed by YU to better manipulate the heavy load when the use is for a tire.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. US 9,850,108 B2; in view of Murayama US2009/0216378 A1; and in further view of Pivac US11,401,115.
Regarding Claim 13. The combination of Gao and Murayama discloses all the limitations of the single load balancer according to claim 8. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the support assembly is a slew bearing.
However, Pivac discloses a machine for conveying objects wherein the support assembly is a slew bearing. (see at least col.7 ln.15) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gao and Murayama with the slew bearings as disclosed by Pivac to further improve the precision and reduce friction.
Claims 16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama US2009/0216378 A1; in view of Gao et al. US 9,850,108 B2;
Regarding Claim 16. Murayama teaches method of moving a load comprising: operatively engaging a load balancer with a support mechanism via an attachment link; securing the load to a support assembly of the load balancer; and maintaining the support assembly and thereby the load substantially parallel to a vertical axis while the support assembly is in the second position. (see at least Fig. 7A-7C, various roll states where the position of the load are locked in angular positions). Murayama doesn’t explicitly teach articulating the support assembly and the load, with a linkage assembly of the load balancer from a first position to a second position and extending through the attachment link.
However, Gao teaches a movement system for moving a payload, wherein articulating the support assembly and the load, with a linkage assembly of the load balancer from a first position to a second position and extending through the attachment link. (see at least col.2 ln.25 , A first axis extends through the first joint of the first four-bar linkage and the third joint of the second four-bar linkage…) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power assist method and system as taught by Murayama with the articulating links as taught by Gao to further reduce friction. (see at least col.5 ln.20)
Regarding Claim 20. The teaching combination of Murayama and Gao teaches all the limitations of the method according to claim 16. Gao teaches further comprising: providing a linkage assembly on the articulating assembly; providing the attachment link on an attachment member; and nonremoveably engaging the linkage assembly to the attachment member. (see at least the Abstract) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power assist method and system as taught by Murayama with the articulating links as taught by Gao to further reduce friction. (see at least col.5 ln.20)
Regarding Claim 21. The teaching combination of Murayama and Gao teaches all the limitations of the method according to claim 20. Gao teaches further wherein the attachment member comprises a trolley and a beam operably engaged with one another, and wherein the attachment link is provided on the trolley. (see at least, col.2 ln.10, The movement system includes a bridge crane, a trolley, and a movement device. The bridge crane is configured for movement along an X axis.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the power assist method and system as taught by Murayama with the articulating links as taught by Gao to further reduce friction. (see at least col.5 ln.20)
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama US2009/0216378 A1; in view of Gao et al. US 9,850,108 B2; and in further view of Murphy et al. US20190228371 A1.
Regarding Claim 17. The teaching combination of Murayama and Gao teaches all the limitations of the method according to claim 16. The combination of Murayama and Geo doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: disengaging the load from the support assembly while the support assembly is in the second position.
However, Murphy discloses a robotic handling manipulator wherein more explicitly comprising disengaging the load from the support assembly while the support assembly is in the second position. (see at least p.44, The system can then cause the manipulator to release the item or container from the manipulator by releasing the retention elements thereon and depositing the item or container at the target location). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Murayama and Gao to more explicitly disclose releasing the load from the support assembly once in position as disclosed by Murphy because that’s a well-known procedure.
Regarding Claim 18. The teaching combination of Murayama, Gao and Murphy teach all the limitations of the method according to claim 17. Murayama teach further comprising: articulating the support assembly from the second position back to the first position. (Murayama, in preparation for an operation to return the power assist apparatus 1 to an operation start position)
Regarding Claim 19. The method according to claim 18, further comprising: articulating the support assembly from the first position to the second position; engaging the load with the support assembly while the support assembly is in the second position; securing the load to the support assembly; articulating the support assembly from the second position to the first position; and disengaging the load from the support assembly while the support assembly Is in the first position. (Murayama, see at least Fig.6 and p.57-66, and p.89, with a command from the control apparatus 5 in preparation for an operation to return the power assist apparatus 1 to an operation start position)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama US2009/0216378 A1; in view of Gao et al. US 9,850,108 B2; and in further view of Tanaka et al. US20080213077 A1.
Regarding Claim 22. The teaching combination of Murayama and Gao teaches all the limitations of the method according to claim 21, further comprising: moving the trolley along the beam; and wherein a center of gravity of the load balancer and the load, together, is substantially aligned with the attachment link during the articulation of the support assembly.
However, Tanaka discloses an articulated robot wherein the load balancer and the load, together, have a center of gravity, and wherein the center of gravity is translated during the articulation of the support assembly by the articulating assembly. (see at least p.110, the center of gravity of the arm assembly 20 by G, and the total mass of the arm assembly 20 by H. For the sake of brevity, the center G of gravity and the total mass H cover the workpiece W and the end effector 59.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Murayama and Gao with the translating of the center of gravity for both the load and the load balancer (i.e. end effector) as taught by Tanka to improve the balancing of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELANI A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani A Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
JELANI A. SMITH
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights