DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action in response to the above identified patent
application filed on January 9, 2025.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, and 17-20 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.
Claims 4, 10, 11, the term “only” in the limitation “the elongated beam in the first position is configured to only extend over the first of the two work areas and in the second position is configured to only extend over the second of the two work areas” does not appear to be accurate and therefore not fully understood. For example, Figure 2 illustrates the elongated beam in the first position which extends over the first work area, in addition to extending over the column (10). Further, Figure 3 illustrates the elongated beam in the second position which extends over the second work area, in addition to extending over the column (10). In other words, the beam extends over other areas, in addition to the first and second work areas. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6, 15, 17, and 18, the limitation “the suspension unit has a locked position in which the suspension unit is positioned when moving the elongated beam between the first and the second position” is not fully understood. The claim appears to define a particular position of the suspension unit, but does not define any lock structure, such as a lock device, or a controller configured to lock a suspension unit actuator to hold the suspension device in a predetermined position. As a reminder, an apparatus claim must define the device in terms of its structure, and not how it is used. In order to provide compact prosecution, the limitation “locked position” has been interpreted as an any position (but not requiring a lock device) of the suspension unit on the beam, prior to moving the beam between the first position and the second position.
Claims 7, 19, and 20, the claim term “preferably” fails to particularly define the metes and bounds of the desired patent protection.
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, 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (CN 202994733).
Zeng teaches a robot system for carrying out work at two separate work areas (Fig. 2 illustrates a first work area at the left end portion of the cylindrical workpiece and a second work area at the right end portion of the cylindrical work piece), the robot system comprising; a column (2), a first guide rail (engaging a top surface of the column), a second guide rail (engaging a top surface of the first guide rail), and a third guide rail (engaging a top surface of the second guide rail), the second guide rail defining a support unit configured to be positioned between the two work areas, the third guide rail defining an elongated beam extending along a geometrical X-axis and arranged on the support unit such that the elongated beam is allowed to linearly move between a first position, in which a first end portion thereof is configured to extend from the support unit and out over a first of the two work areas, and a second position in which a second end portion thereof is configured to extend from the support unit and out over a second of the two work areas, a robot (4), a suspension unit (the member between the beam and the robot base, wherein the robot can be suspended from a side portion of the third guide rail) configured to hold the robot and arranged on the elongated beam (third guide rail) such that the suspension unit is allowed to move along the elongated beam, and a drive arrangement (inherent, written disclosure describes the device as being automatic which requires a drive device) configured to individually move each of the elongated beam and the suspension unit, thereby allowing the robot to selectively operate in each of the two work areas.
Claim 2: Zeng teaches the suspension unit is elongated along a geometrical Z-axis (extending from front to back of the device in Fig. 1) and the robot is arranged on the suspension unit such that the robot is allowed to move along the elongated suspension unit (such as pivoting the robot arms), and wherein the drive arrangement is further configured to individually move the robot (pivot the robot arms) along the elongated suspension unit.
Claims 4 and 10: As best understood, Zeng teaches the elongated beam in the first position is configured to extend over the first of the two work areas and in the second position is configured to extend over the second of the two work areas.
Claims 5, 12, and 14: Zeng teaches the drive arrangement comprises a first drive unit (inherent) for moving the elongated beam and a second drive unit (inherent) for moving the suspension unit.
Claims 6, 15, 17, and 18: As best understood, Zeng teaches the suspension unit has a (locked) position in which the suspension unit is positioned when moving the elongated beam between the first and the second position.
Claim 8: Zeng teaches the structural limitations of a robot, as described above, in addition to the method limitations of “positioning,” “utilizing,” “configuring,” and “allowing.”
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, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (CN 202994733), as applied to claim 1 above.
Zeng does not disclose the length of the beam. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the beam with a length that is less than 67% of the claimed distance between two work areas, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing the claimed device, to configure the beam of Zeng with a length that is less than 67% of the claimed distance between the two work areas, motivation being to process a predetermined sized workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 13, and 16 are 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.
Claims 11 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the robot of claim 1, including the support unit is mounted to a track extending along a geometrical Y-axis allowing the support unit to move along the track, and wherein the drive arrangement is further configured to individually move the support unit along the track.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the cited references on PTO form 892 showing support structures for robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights