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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. JP2024-028962 filed on 02/28/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “inclination” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “orientation about a vertical axis,” while the accepted meaning is “a deviation from the true vertical or horizontal.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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 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(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghanem (US 2019/0317486).
Regarding claim 1:
Ghanem teaches A robot system comprising:
a robot that is configured to perform work on a workpiece transported to a work area (one or more robots perform manufacturing operation in a workstation, see at least ¶0035, ¶0039);
a sensor that is configured to output a signal related to inclination of the workpiece with respect to a reference orientation when the robot performs work on the workpiece, the signal being related to the inclination of the workpiece that arrived at the work area (spatial position is measured using measurement device 22, compared to nominal position, ¶0029, ¶0032-0033); and
a transport vehicle (AGV) that is configured to transport the workpiece to the work area (see at least ¶0028) and configured to correct the inclination of the workpiece based on the signal from the sensor so that the workpiece is aligned with the reference orientation in the work area (locators 29 adjust workpiece to correct orientation to nominal position, at least embodiment as in Fig. 5a-b and ¶0036-0039 has locators as part of the AGV).
Regarding claim 5:
Ghanem further teaches wherein the transport vehicle is an autonomous mobile robot (automatic guided vehicle, see at least abstract, ¶0002).
Regarding claim 6:
Ghanem further teaches a locator that is located in the work area and that is configured to support the workpiece delivered from the transport vehicle while the robot is working (plurality of locators 29, broadly interpreted, the locators are located in the work area when the AGV is in the work area, see at least Fig. 5a-b).
Regarding claim 7:
Ghanem further teaches wherein the sensor is a camera that is configured to photograph the workpiece located in the work area (see at least ¶0029).
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 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 of this title, 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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanem (US 2019/0317486) in view of Burkhart et al (US 2021/0080968).
Regarding claim 2:
Ghanem teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Ghanem is silent as to a rotary table configured to rotate a workpiece about a vertical axis.
Burkhart teaches an autonomous guided vehicle for transporting a workpiece, wherein the vehicle comprises a rotary table that is configured to rotate the workpiece about a vertical axis (see at least Fig. 1, table 112, ¶0016-0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the autonomous guided vehicle as taught by Ghanem with the rotary table as taught by Burkhart, since the rotary table is a known, functionally equivalent meant of adjusting an orientation of a workpiece in the x-y plane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanem (US 2019/0317486) in view of Wamsser et al. (US 2025/0326453).
Regarding claim 3:
Ghanem teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Ghanem is silent as to turning about a vertical axis to correct the inclination.
Wamsser teaches a system and method transferring workpieces between workstations of a work area using autonomous transport vehicles wherein
the transport vehicle is configured to turn about a vertical axis, and
the transport vehicle is configured to correct the inclination of the workpiece by turning after stopping in the work area (see at least ¶0012-0017, ¶0024, ¶00150-0159).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the autonomous guided vehicle as taught by Ghanem with the omnidirectional wheels as taught by Wamsser, since such turning is a known, functionally equivalent meant of adjusting an orientation of a workpiece in the x-y plane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanem as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dohi (US 2006/0219525).
Regarding claim 4:
Ghanem teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Ghanem is silent as to a stopper.
Dohi teaches a system of transporting a workpiece using a transport vehicle, including a stopper that is configured to interfere with a front portion of a moving body including the workpiece and the transport vehicle in a traveling direction in the work area, wherein
the transport vehicle is configured to stop while the moving body is bumped against the stopper (see at least Fig. 1, 6, ¶0105)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robotic workpiece transfer system and method as taught by Ghanem with the well-known technique of providing a stopper to position a workpiece at a desired location as taught by Dohi in order to provide for an accurate, repeatable position for a workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights