DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 10: Applicant should delete the limitation “and the service tool” (Lines 14-15).
Claim 14: Applicant is advised that should Claim 4 be found allowable, Claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being an exact duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The text of 35 U.S.C. § 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub 2005/0133305 A1 to Okada et al., in view of U.S. Patent 11,358,289 B2 to Uemura et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0112766 A1 to Bassis.
Claim 1: Okada discloses an industrial robot (“robot” disclosed in the abstract) comprising:
a joint 12 (i.e., not a “plurality of joints,” as recited in Claim 1);
a link 16 arranged to be driven in motion by the joint 12 (i.e., not a “plurality of links arranged to be driven in motion by the joints,” as recited in Claim 1);
a housing including the link 16, an opening 46 and a cover 50 for selectably closing the opening 46, the housing defining an interior region and an exterior region of the industrial robot; and
for at least one joint 12, a kinematic device 20 associated with the joint 12 and positioned in the interior region, and at least one fluid connection 38, 44 in fluid communication with the kinematic device 20, each (i.e., “the”) fluid connection 44 being arranged to supply lubricant to, or to receive lubricant from, the kinematic device 20 and being accessible from the exterior region through the opening 46 when the cover 50 is removed.
Okada also discloses that fluid connection 38 is connectable to a service tool 54.
Okada does not disclose an industrial robot which comprises a plurality of joints and a plurality of links. Further, the Office interprets the limitation “such that each fluid connection is connectable to a service tool,” as recited in amended Claim 1, to mean that each fluid connection 38, 44 is “accessible from the exterior region through the opening 46 when the cover 50 is removed.” However, Okada does not disclose that fluid connection 38 is accessible through the opening 46. Finally, Okada does not disclose that fluid connection 44 is connectable to a service tool.
Uemura, like Okada, is assigned to Fanuc Corporation and discloses an industrial robot comprising a plurality of joints which drive in motion a plurality of links.
In view of the Uemura teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the robot disclosed by Okada actually comprises a plurality of joints and a plurality of links arranged to be driven in motion by the plurality of joints because these references belong to Fanuc and Fanuc is well-known in the art, as shown by Uemura, to produce industrial robots comprising a plurality of joints and a plurality of links.
Bassis teaches a system and method of replacing oil in which a fluid connection for lubricant supply (the connection of gearbox housing 107 which is aligned with supply hose 108b shown in FIG. 1B) and a fluid connection for lubricant return (the bottom connection of gearbox housing 107 aligned with return hose 108d shown in FIG. 1B) are provided on a same side of the gearbox housing 107.
In view of the Bassis teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the industrial robot disclosed by Okada (as clarified above in view of the Uemura teaching), such that the fluid connection 38 is provided on a same side of the housing as the fluid connection 44 so as to reduce the time it takes to change the lubricant of the industrial robot. As modified, the housing of Okada comprises a plurality of service connections, such as the quick connect connections provided on the wall 106 of gearbox housing 107 of the Bassis teaching, in order to allow the supply and return (i.e., drainage) lines to be connected to supply and return lubricant lines. Further, as modified, each fluid connection is connectable to a service tool (the plurality of service connections).
Claim 2: Okada discloses that, for each fluid connection 38, 44, a fluid line 28 (a fluid line is inherent for fluid connection 38) providing a fluid communication between the [at least one] fluid connection 38, 44 and the kinematic device 20. Thus, the industrial robot of Claim 2 is rendered obvious over the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis as described above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 3: Okada discloses that the fluid line 28 is configured such that the fluid connection 44 can be positioned in the exterior region when the cover 50 is removed. As modified by Bassis in the rejection of Claim 1 above, the Office submits that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify the industrial robot disclosed by Okada such that a fluid line associated with the grease supply (i.e. fluid connection 38) includes a fluid line which can be positioned in the exterior region when the cover 50 is removed. Thus, the industrial robot of Claim 3 is rendered obvious over the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis, as described above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 4 and 14: Okada discloses that the fluid line 28 comprises a hose. As modified by Bassis in the rejection of Claim 2 above, the Office submits that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify the industrial robot disclosed by Okada such that the fluid line associated with the grease supply (i.e. fluid connection 38) comprises a hose which is in fluid communication between the fluid connection 38 and the kinematic device 20. Thus, the industrial robot of Claims 4 and 14, which both depend from Claim 2, are rendered obvious over the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis, as described above in the rejection of Claims 1-2.
Claims 5 and 15: Okada discloses wherein the kinematic device 20 is a transmission, an electric motor, a bearing or a dynamic seal associated with the joint 12. Thus, the industrial robot of Claims 5 and 15, which depend from Claims 1 and 2, respectively, are rendered obvious over the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis, as described above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 6 and 16: Okada discloses wherein the housing is hermetically sealed. Thus, the industrial robot of Claims 6 and 16, which depend from Claims 1 and 2, respectively, are rendered obvious over the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis, as described above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 8 and 18: Okada discloses wherein the cover 50 and the kinematic device 20 are positioned in opposite regions of a link 16 associated with the joint 12 with respect to an axis 20a associated with the joint 12. Thus, the industrial robot of Claims 8 and 18, which depend from Claims 1 and 2, respectively, are rendered obvious over the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis, as described above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 9 and 19: Okada discloses wherein the kinematic device 20 is positioned inside, and the opening 46 is provided in, a common link. Thus, the industrial robot of Claims 9 and 19, which depend from Claims 1 and 2, respectively, are rendered obvious over the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis, as described above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 10: Okada discloses a system comprising:
an industrial robot (“robot” disclosed in the abstract) having[:]
a joint 12 (i.e., not a “plurality of joints,” as recited in Claim 10);
a link 16 arranged to be driven in motion by the joint 12 (i.e., not a “plurality of links arranged to be driven in motion by the joints,” as recited in Claim 10);
a housing including the link 16, an opening 46 and a cover 50 for selectably closing the opening 46, the housing defining an interior region and an exterior region of the industrial robot; and
for at least one joint 12, a kinematic device 20 associated with the joint 12 and positioned in the interior region, and at least one fluid connection 38, 44 in fluid communication with the kinematic device 20, the fluid connection 44 being arranged to supply lubricant to, or to receive lubricant from, the kinematic device 20 and being accessible from the exterior region through the opening 46 when the cover 50 is removed.
Okada further discloses that the fluid connection 38 is connectable to a service tool 54, and wherein the service tool 54 is configured to be connected to one of the at least one fluid connection 38 to supply lubricant to the kinematic device.
Thus, Okada is distinguished from Claim 10 in the following ways: Okada does not disclose an industrial robot which comprises a plurality of joints and/or a plurality of links, or wherein the fluid connection 38 is accessible through the opening 46 such that each fluid connection 38, 44 is… accessible from the exterior region through the opening 46 when the cover 50 is removed.
Uemura, like Okada, is assigned to Fanuc Corporation and discloses an industrial robot comprising a plurality of joints which drive in motion a plurality of links.
In view of the Uemura teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the robot disclosed by Okada actually comprises a plurality of joints and a plurality of links arranged to be driven in motion by the plurality of joints because these references belong to Fanuc and Fanuc is well-known in the art, as shown by Uemura, to produce industrial robots comprising a plurality of joints and a plurality of links.
Bassis teaches a system and method of replacing oil in which a fluid connection for lubricant supply (the connection of gearbox housing 107 which is aligned with supply hose 108b shown in FIG. 1B) and a fluid connection for lubricant return (the bottom connection of gearbox housing 107 aligned with return hose 108d shown in FIG. 1B) are provided on a same side of the gearbox housing 107.
In view of the Bassis teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the system disclosed by Okada (as clarified above in view of the Uemura teaching), such that the fluid connection 38 is provided on a same side of the housing as the fluid connection 44 so as to reduce the time it takes to change the lubricant of the industrial robot. As modified, the housing of Okada comprises a plurality of service connections, such as the quick connect connections provided on the wall 106 of gearbox housing 107 of the Bassis teaching, in order to allow the supply and return (i.e., drainage) lines to be connected to supply and return lubricant lines.
Claim 12: As described above in the rejection of Claim 10, the housing of Okada (as modified in view of the Bassis teaching) comprises a plurality of service connections, such as the quick connect connections provided on the wall 106 of gearbox housing 107 of the Bassis teaching, in order to allow the supply and return (i.e., drainage) lines to be connected to supply and return lubricant lines. Such a housing allows a service tool which comprises a service tool connection (which may be similar to a quick connect connection as taught by Bassis), each service tool connection being configured to be connected to a unique fluid connection associated with [the joint 12] of Okada. Thus, the system of Claim 12 is rendered obvious over the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis.
Claim 13: As described above in the rejection of Claims 10 and 12, the housing of Okada may be modified to include a plurality of quick connect fittings (i.e., quick couplings). Thus, the system of Claim 13, in which each pair of a service tool connection and a fluid connection forms a quick coupling, is rendered obvious over the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0133305 A1 to Okada et al. and U.S. Patent No. 11,358,289 B2 to Uemura et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0112766 A1 to Bassis, as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0353156 A1 to Ward et al.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, which depend from Claims 1 and 2, respectively, the combination of Okada, Uemura, and Bassis do not disclose that each fluid connection comprises a unique identification feature associated with the fluid connection and/or with the kinematic device.
Ward teaches a system in which “quick connection and disconnection fittings may be unique for each connection to eliminate interconnection errors.” Paragraph [0434].
In view of the Ward teaching, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the industrial robot disclosed by Okada (as clarified above by Uemura in the rejection of Claim 1), such that the fluid connections for the supply line and the return line comprise a unique identification feature, such as a specific diameter or specific grooves within the fitting, which are associated with the fluid connection and/or with the kinematic device 20 of Okada, in order to eliminate interconnection errors, as taught by Ward.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 03/19/2026 arguments relating to Claim 1 are moot because they do not apply to the combination of the references cited in the current rejection. Applicant's 03/19/2026 arguments relating to Claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that “the joint 44 (of Okada) is not connectable to a service tool.” The Office submits that this is not a limitation or feature that is claimed. The only element of Claim 1 which is “connectable to a service tool” is “each fluid connection.”
Second, Applicant argues that “nowhere does Okada suggest that the joint 44 is arranged to supply lubricant to the reduction mechanism” and then goes on to explain how the joint 44 is arranged to supply lubricant to the reduction mechanism (by citing Paragraph [0042]). Applicant notes that “Okada still fails to teach that the nipple 38 is accessible from the exterior region through the opening [46] when the cover [50] is removed such that each fluid connection is connectable to a service tool.” The Office agrees; however, the Office uses Bassis to teach this limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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 and rewritten to overcome the clarity issues presented above under 35 U.S.C. 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0133305 A1 to Okada et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,358,289 B2 to Uemura et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0353156 A1 to Ward et al., and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0112766 A1 to Bassis are the closest prior art.
Regarding Claim 11, the Office does not find that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing to attain the “reader” recited in Claim 11 which is “configured to identify [a] identification feature.”
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDELL J KRUG whose telephone number is (313) 446-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00-14:00 AZ time.
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 on 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.
/RANDELL J KRUG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights