DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (EP 0044737), and/or over Noguchi (EP 0044737) in view of Long (US 2013/0081502).
Regarding the claims, Noguchi 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) including a first output shaft and causing the second arm (11) to pivot around the first horizontal axis with respect to the first arm (7); and a second motor (501) including a second output shaft and 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).
Noguchi does not disclose that the first output shaft and the second output shaft are disposed toward the second arm.
However, ordinary practitioners in the robotic arts are expected to have a high degree of skill; and it is reasoned that rearranging the physical location of respective components is common, ordinary, and well-within the abilities of robotics practitioners. With respect to the claimed limitation, the claimed respective orientations of the motors do 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 (e.g., the motors still drive the arms with predictable results). 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
Further, the prior art of Long teaches a configuration of two motors (40, 60) with respective first, second output shafts (42, 62) which are disposed horizontally (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing either to rearrange the motors of Noguchi, or to replace the design of motor orientation of Noguchi with the design of motor orientation of Long, for the expected benefit of a more compact configuration, improved weight distribution, and/or improved performance.
The combination, as motivated above, suggests the remaining limitations of the claims as follows (mapping to Noguchi unless otherwise stated):
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 the first 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 the second 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).
11. (Original) The vertical articulated robot according to claim 10, wherein in a plan view in a vertical direction, the first horizontal axis is located between the first motor and the second motor (as combined).
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).
13. (New) The vertical articulated robot according to claim 1, wherein the first output shaft and the second output shaft extend in the direction along the first horizontal axis, are offset from the first horizontal axis, and are disposed on opposite sides of the first horizontal axis in a plan view in a vertical direction (as combined).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (EP 0044737), or Noguchi (EP 0044737) and Long (US 2013/0081502), in view of Ito et al. (US 4,601,635).
Noguchi does not disclose the limitations of claims 7 and 14.
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. The remaining limitations of the claims flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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