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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2022/115469 application, filed on August 29, 2022,n as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 4-5, 9, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5605432 A to Fink.
Re Claim 1, Fink teaches:
A fixture for transferring a bundled cardboard (at least [Abstract] “robot manipulator”), comprising:
a frame extending substantially in a first direction and comprising an upper side and a lower side (at least Figs. 2-6 element 5);
a first gripper attached to the frame at a first place adjacent to the upper side and comprising a gripping plate extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the gripping plate comprising a gripping surface adapted to engage with a first surface of the bundled cardboard (at least Figs. 2-6 element 11); and
a second gripper attached to the frame at a second place adjacent to the lower side and comprising at least one clamping arm, the clamping arm adapted to abut against a second surface of the bundled cardboard, the second surface being opposite to the first surface (at least Figs. 2-6 element 13).
Re Claim 4, Fink teaches:
The fixture of claim 1, wherein the gripping surface is configured to engage with the first surface of the bundled cardboard via a vacuum suction (at least Figs. 2-6 and [Col. 7 lines 60-67] “two or more sets of suction heads 12 with a suction generating device, e.g., a suction pump”).
Re Claim 5, Fink teaches:
The fixture of claim 4, wherein the gripping plate comprises M suction points distributed on the gripping surface and grouped into N groups, the suction points in each group being controlled by one air circulation circuit, M being an integer greater than 3, N being an integer between 1 and M (at least Figs. 2-6 and [Col. 7 lines 60-67] “two or more sets of suction heads 12 with a suction generating device, e.g., a suction pump”).
Re Claim 9, Fink teaches:
The fixture of claim 1, wherein the frame comprises an upper mount portion adapted to be attached to a robotic arm and a lower support portion adapted to abut against a side surface of the bundled cardboard (at least Figs. 2-6).
Re Claim 13, Fink teaches:
A method for transferring a bundled cardboard (at least [Abstract] “robot manipulator”), comprising;
picking up the bundled cardboard by acting on a first surface of the bundled cardboard by a first gripper (at least Figs. 2-6 element 11); rotating a second gripper to abut against a second surface of the bundled cardboard , the second surface being opposite to the second surface (at least Figs. 2-6 and [Col. 6 lines 1-15] “rotate the head 22 and the tool A thereon”); moving the first gripper toward the second gripper to reduce a distance between the first and second grippers; and transferring the bundled cardboard (at least Figs. 1-2 and [Col. 6 lines 15-30] “pallets P in the space 25 are distributed in accordance with a preselected pattern so that the tool A can be automatically guided to reach the commodities on a selected pallet for transfer onto the conveyor C. As already mentioned above, the pallets P can support arrayed stacks K of blanks which are tied together so that their mutual positions are not changed during transport by the tool A and/or bobbins B of cigarette paper, tipping paper or other webs of sheet-like material. Furthermore, the pallets P can serve to deliver stacks of blanks which are to be converted into cartons for the reception and confinement of selected numbers of packets”).
Re Claim 14, Fink teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the picking up comprises vacuum sucking the first surface of the bundled cardboard by the first gripper (at least Figs. 2-6 and [Col. 7 lines 60-67] “two or more sets of suction heads 12 with a suction generating device, e.g., a suction pump”).
Re Claim 15, Fink teaches:
A robot comprising a robotic arm ; and the fixture for transferring a bundled cardboard according to claim 1, the fixture being attached to the robotic arm (at least Figs. 1-6).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of US 20070280812 A1 to Morency.
Re Claim 2, Fink teaches:
The fixture of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Fink does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first gripper is movably attached to the frame such that the gripping plate is linearly movable along the first direction to change a distance between the gripping surface and the clamping arm.
However, Morency teaches:
wherein the first gripper is movably attached to the frame such that the gripping plate is linearly movable along the first direction to change a distance between the gripping surface and the clamping arm (at least Fig. 2 element 52).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gripper taught by Fink with the plate taught by Morency with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it allows adjustment of the position of the target object with respect to the gripper.
Re Claim 3, the combination of Fink and Morency teaches:
The fixture of claim 2 (detailed with respect to claim 2).
Morency further teaches:
further comprising a first pneumatic actuator fixedly attached to the frame and configured to move the first gripper along the first direction (at least Fig. 2 and [0030] “pneumatic actuators”).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of JP 2022105537 A to Nakamoto.
Re Claim 6, Fink teaches:
The fixture of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Fink does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second gripper is rotationally attached to the frame such that the clamping arm is rotatable around the first direction between an extended position at which the clamping arm protrudes from the frame and a retracted position at which the clamping arm does not enter a projection area of the gripping surface along the first direction.
However, Nakamoto teaches:
wherein the second gripper is rotationally attached to the frame such that the clamping arm is rotatable around the first direction between an extended position at which the clamping arm protrudes from the frame and a retracted position at which the clamping arm does not enter a projection area of the gripping surface along the first direction (at least Figs. 3A-B elements 68a-b and [0039] of the translation “claw portions 68a and 68b that are rotated by, for example, 90° around the axis of the X axis and bent by, for example, 90° ”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gripper taught by Fink with the rotation taught by Nakamoto with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “drive state of the motor or the like that moves the claw portions 68a, 68b of the back grip portion 68 with respect to the upper surface grip portion 64 is controlled by the grip control unit 52 based on the determination by the grip method determination unit 56 of the control unit 32” (Nakamoto [0039]) which increases the range of gripping.
Re Claim 7, the combination of Fink and Morency teaches:
The fixture of claim 6 (detailed with respect to claim 6).
Nakamoto further teaches:
wherein the second gripper comprises at least two clamping arms spaced from each other to abut against the second surface of the bundled cardboard at different positions, the at least two clamping arms being synchronously moved (at least Figs. 3A-B elements 68a-b and [0039] of the translation “claw portions 68a and 68b that are rotated by, for example, 90° around the axis of the X axis and bent by, for example, 90° ”)).
Re Claim 8, the combination of Fink and Morency teaches:
The fixture of claim 7 (detailed with respect to claim 7).
Fink further teaches:
further comprising a second pneumatic actuator fixedly attached to the frame and a linkage mechanism configured to receive an output force from the second pneumatic actuator to synchronously drive the at least two clamping arms (at least Fig. 2 and [0030] “pneumatic actuators”).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of CN 106672620 A to Hu.
Re Claim 10, Fink teaches:
The fixture of claim 1 (detailed with respect to claim 1).
Fink does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a cutting device comprising; a body fixedly attached to the frame; a fixed cutter fixedly attached to the body; and a movable cutter rotationally attached to the body, the movable cutter being rotatable between a cutting position at which the movable cutter contacts the fixed cutter to cut off a belt of the bundled cardboard and a separation position at which the movable cutter is separate from the fixed cutter.
However, Hu teaches:
further comprising a cutting device comprising; a body fixedly attached to the frame; a fixed cutter fixedly attached to the body; and a movable cutter rotationally attached to the body, the movable cutter being rotatable between a cutting position at which the movable cutter contacts the fixed cutter to cut off a belt of the bundled cardboard and a separation position at which the movable cutter is separate from the fixed cutter (at least Figs. 4-5 element 53 and [p. 4 of the translation] “the pneumatic gripper 53 […] the pneumatic scissors 53 are then operated to cut […] The pneumatic scissors 53 and the first gripping cylinder 54 are then returned to the initial position where the robotic composite gripping device is moved over the other means to the top of the recovery bar 70 and then the second gripping cylinder 55 is retracted, 70 into the recovery bar 70 frame, so as to complete the tie 70 grip, cut and put the process”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gripper taught by Fink with the cutting device taught by Hu with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The pneumatic scissors 53 and the first gripping cylinder 54 are then returned to the initial position where the robotic composite gripping device is moved over the other means to the top of the recovery bar 70 and then the second gripping cylinder 55 is retracted, 70 into the recovery bar 70 frame, so as to complete the tie 70 grip, cut and put the process” (Hu [p. 4 of the translation]).
Re Claim 11, the combination of Fink and Hu teaches:
The fixture of claim 10 (detailed with respect to claim 10).
Hu further teaches:
wherein the cutting device comprises a third pneumatic actuator configured to drive the movable cutter, the movable cutter being shaped to rotate in response to a linear movement of the pneumatic actuator (at least Figs. 4-5 element 53 and [p. 4 of the translation] “the pneumatic gripper 53 […] the pneumatic scissors 53 are then operated to cut […] The pneumatic scissors 53 and the first gripping cylinder 54 are then returned to the initial position where the robotic composite gripping device is moved over the other means to the top of the recovery bar 70 and then the second gripping cylinder 55 is retracted, 70 into the recovery bar 70 frame, so as to complete the tie 70 grip, cut and put the process”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner notes that US 5605432 A to Fink, US 20070280812 A1 to Morency, JP 2022105537 A to Nakamoto, and CN 106672620 A to Hu are particularly relevant.
Regarding claim 12, the primary reference Fink teaches a fixture comprising a frame, a gripping plate, grippers, and clamping arms but does not explicitly teach “further comprising a belt supporting device configured to hold the belt that has been cut off from the bundled cardboard, comprising; a groove arranged in the body; and a clamping member fixed to the movable cutter, extending in parallel with the movable cutter and configured to engage with the groove when the movable cutter is at the cutting position.” While Fink Fig. 6 and [Col. 11 lines 1-5] “individual endless belts or bands or chains” teaches a belt and belt supporting device, Fink does not teach a cutter and thus also fails to teach the claimed clamping member fixed to the movable cutter and groove. Although Morency teaches various grooves in Figs. 2-6, Morency also does not teach a cutter and thus also fails to teach the claimed clamping member fixed to the movable cutter and engaging with the groove. Nakamoto suffers from a similar deficiency. Although Hu teaches a cutter, Hu fails to teach the claimed clamping member fixed to the movable cutter, extending in parallel with the movable cutter and configured to engage with the groove when the movable cutter is at the cutting position.
There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to result in Applicant’s claimed structure. The dependent claims are allowed for similar reasons due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
