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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Noguchi (EP 0044737).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. A vertical articulated robot comprising: a base (4); a first arm (7) pivoting (via 301) around a vertical axis (figs. 27-28 and 29) with respect to the base (4); a second arm (11) coupled to the first arm (7) and pivoting (via 401) around a first horizontal axis (figs. 27-28 and 30) with respect to the first arm (7); a third arm (17) coupled to the second arm (11) and pivoting (via 501) around a second horizontal axis (figs. 27-28 and 31) with respect to the second arm (11); a first motor (401) causing the second arm (11) to pivot around the first horizontal axis with respect to the first arm (7); and a second motor (501) causing the third arm (17) to pivot around the second horizontal axis with respect to the second arm (11), wherein the first motor (401) and the second motor (501) are respectively disposed in (figs. 27-28 and 30-31) the first arm (7).
2. The vertical articulated robot according to claim 1, further comprising: a first speed reducer (408) coupling (fig. 30) the first arm (11) and the second arm (17); and a first power transmission mechanism (402, 405, 406) coupling the first motor (401) and the first speed reducer (408) and transmitting power of the first motor (401) to the first speed reducer (408).
3. The vertical articulated robot according to claim 2, wherein the first power transmission mechanism (including any of 402, 405, and/or 406) includes a first motor-side pulley (402) disposed in an output shaft of the first motor (401), a first speed reducer-side pulley (405) disposed in an input shaft of the first speed reducer (408), and a first belt (406) wound around the first motor-side pulley (402) and the first speed reducer-side pulley (405).
4. The vertical articulated robot according to claim 3, further comprising: a second speed reducer (508) coupling the second arm (11) and the third arm (17); and a second power transmission mechanism (including any of 502, 506, 505, 509, 511, and/or 510) coupling (fig. 31) the second motor (501) and the second speed reducer (508) and transmitting power of the second motor (501) to the second speed reducer (508).
5. The vertical articulated robot according to claim 4, wherein the second power transmission mechanism (502, 506, 505, 509, 511, 510) includes a first transmission mechanism (502, 506, 505) disposed inside (fig. 31) the first arm (7) and a second transmission mechanism (511, 510, 509) disposed inside (fig. 31) the second arm (11), the first transmission mechanism (502, 506, 505) includes a second motor-side pulley (502) disposed in an output shaft (figs. 28, 31) of the second motor (501), a first intermediate pulley (505) rotating around the first horizontal axis (figs. 28, 31), and a second belt (506) wound around the second motor-side pulley (502) and the first intermediate pulley (505), and the second transmission mechanism (511, 510, 509) includes a second intermediate pulley (509) rotating around the first horizontal axis (figs. 28, 31) together with the first intermediate pulley (505), a second speed reducer-side pulley (510) disposed in an input shaft (figs. 28, 31) of the second speed reducer (508), and a third belt (511) wound around the second intermediate pulley (509) and the second speed reducer-side pulley (510).
6. The vertical articulated robot according to claim 5, wherein the first speed reducer (408) is provided with a through-hole communicating with an inside of the first arm (7) and an inside of the second arm (11) along the first horizontal axis (figs. 28, 31), and the first intermediate pulley (505) and the second intermediate pulley (509) are coupled via a shaft (i.e., counter-shaft) inserted into the through-hole.
8. The vertical articulated robot according to claim 1, wherein the second arm (11) is coupled to the first arm (7) from one side in a direction along the first horizontal axis (figs. 27-28 show coupling on either side).
9. The vertical articulated robot according to claim 1, wherein the second arm (11) is coupled to the first arm (7) from both sides in a direction along the first horizontal axis (figs. 27-28 show coupling on both sides).
10. The vertical articulated robot according to claim 1, wherein the first motor (401) and the second motor (501) mutually overlap in a plan view in a horizontal direction orthogonal to the first horizontal axis (figs. 28, 30-31 clearly show the claimed configuration).
12. The vertical articulated robot according to claim 1, wherein the first motor (401) and the second motor (501) mutually overlap in a plan view in a vertical direction (i.e., if the mechanism of fig. 28 is turned on its side, the vertical direction of fig. 28 would be the direction viewed orthogonal to horizontal axis of 408 where 401, 501 overlap).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (EP 0044737), in view of Ito et al. (US 4,601,635).
Noguchi does not disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, the use of hollow shafts to route wires within robotic components was old and well-known in the art. Ito teaches a robot with base 10, arm support 11, arms 12, 13, and wrist 14, which are respectively coupled by hollow shafts for the purpose of extending wires from one component to another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the old and well-known design of hollow shafts, such as taught by Ito, in combination with the general structure of Noguchi, for the expected benefit of allowing wiring to be routed between components.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (EP 0044737), in view of (CN 113305811).
Noguchi shows, in fig. 28, adjacent motors 401, 501 which are located on the same side with respect to the axis of reducer 408, and therefore cannot be said to read on the limitations of claim 11.
CN teaches an arrangement of motors 3, 4 about a horizontal axis (e.g., either axes of 311 or 312). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the motor design of CN in place of the motor design of Noguchi, for the expected benefit of providing more efficient heat dissipation.
However, even in absence of the explicit teachings of the prior art, it is reasoned that rearranging the physical location of respective components is expected to be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to claim 11, the claimed respective locations of the motors and the horizontal axis does not appear to modify the operation of the claimed device, and rearranging the device of the prior art to have the respective configuration, as claimed, would not impact or change the function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of relative configuration, and since the claimed device having the relative configuration would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art.1 Further, it has been held to be well-within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts of a device according to design specifications, and the particular placement, arrangement, or ordering of known elements would be an obvious matter of design choice.2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) [emphasis added]
2 In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice) [emphasis added]
Prosecution Insights