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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/20/2026 has been entered.
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 28-38, 40-41, 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi [US Pub # 2009/0146019] in view of Broekhuijsen [DE 10158741].
Regarding claim 28: Choi shows a return device (60) for returning at least one line, comprising: an elongated return element (520) for returning the at least one line; a mounting device (510) for mounting the return element on an articulated arm robot (20, see fig 1); wherein the mounting device (510) is configured to attach to a robot hinge section (411) of the articulated arm robot, and a guiding device (300+400) for guiding the at least one line (40); wherein the return element (520) is designed as an elastic swing element.
Choi does not show a longitudinal axis of the return element is orthogonal to and intersects an axis of the robot hinge section. However Broekhuijsen shows a longitudinal axis (25.1) of the return element is orthogonal to and intersects an axis of the robot hinge section (19, see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have modified the location of the return element in Choi and have relocated the return element such that the axis of the return element intersects and orthogonal to the robot hinge section to prevent the cable from interfering with the robot arm and prevent cable tangling.
Regarding claim 29: Choi shows wherein the return element (520) serves for length compensation and for lateral direction compensation for the at least one line ([0047]).
Regarding claim 30: Choi shows wherein the guiding device (300+400) forms a free end of the return device (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 31: Choi shows wherein the return element (520) extends axially between the mounting device (510) and the guiding device (300+400) and the mounting device (510) and the guiding device (300+400) are formed at opposite axial ends of the return element (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 32: Choi shows wherein the return element (520) is configured to be freely swingable (see [0046]); is configured for multidimensional elastic returning of the at least one line in all three spatial directions; and is deformable elastically in its longitudinal and lateral direction ([0046]).
Regarding claim 33: Choi shows wherein the guiding device (300+400) is freely movable elastically in space relative to the mounting device by way of the return element.
Regarding claim 34: Choi shows wherein the return element (520) is a coil spring (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 35: Choi shows wherein the guiding device (300+400) is configured to guide the at least one line (40) transversely past the return element, and defines a guiding axis for the at least one line and the guiding axis is oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis of the return element (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 36: Choi shows wherein the return element (520) is configured to be bent, pulled and twisted by the at least one line (see [0046]).
Regarding claim 37: Choi shows wherein the return element (520) forms a cantilever arm supported at the mounting device (510) and projects away from the mounting device (510) in order to distance the guiding device (300) from the mounting device (510) by way of the longitudinal extend of the return element (520) and in order to form a lever arm for returning the at least one line by way of the longitudinal extend of the return element (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 38: Choi shows wherein the return element (520) is elastically bendable transversely to its longitudinal axis and laterally elastically deflectable relative to its longitudinal axis (see [0046]), and the guiding device defines a guiding axis for the at least one line and the return element (520) is configured to be moved transversely, in particular orthogonally, to the guiding axis of the guiding device (300+400).
Regarding claim 40: Choi shows an articulated arm robot, comprising: a robot base; a first pivotable robot arm (10); a second pivotable robot arm (20);
wherein the second pivotable robot arm (20) is supported pivotably about a movement axis at the first robot arm by a robot hinge section (411, see fig 6A).
a robot hand section; and at least one return device, including: an elongated return element (520) for returning the at least one line; a mounting device (510) for mounting the return element (520) on an articulated arm robot; wherein the mounting device (510) is attached to the second robot arm (20, see fig 1) and to the robot hinge section (411, see fig 3),
and a guiding device (300+400) for guiding the at least one line; wherein the return element (520) is designed as an elastic swing element (see [0046]).
Choi does not show a longitudinal axis of the return element is orthogonal to and intersects an axis of the robot hinge section. However Broekhuijsen shows a longitudinal axis (25.1) of the return element is orthogonal to and intersects an axis of the robot hinge section (19, see fig 2).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have modified the location of the return element in Choi and have relocated the return element such that the axis of the return element intersects and orthogonal to the robot hinge section to prevent the cable from interfering with the robot arm and prevent cable tangling.
Regarding claim 41: Choi shows wherein the return element (520) projects from the articulated arm robot (see fig 1) in order to distance the guiding device (300+400) and thus the at least one line from the articulated arm robot by way of the longitudinal extend of the return element (520) and in order to form a lever arm for returning the at least one line by the longitudinal extend of the return element (520).
Regarding claim 44: Choi shows wherein the mounting device and thus the return element is pivotable with the second robot arm.
Regarding claim 45: Choi shows wherein the return element (520) comprises a base position to which it strives to return and in which it extends in a straight line (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 46: Choi shows wherein the return element (520), in the base position, is oriented transversely, orthogonally, to a movement axis of the second robot arm (20) is oriented transversely, orthogonally, to a longitudinal axis of the second robot arm is oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the first robot arm, and is oriented away from the articulated arm robot starting from the mounting device (510).
Regarding claim 47: Choi shows wherein the at least one line is fixed to the second robot arm (20) and to the robot hand section and preferably the second robot arm (20) and the robot hand section (30) is movable relative to the guiding device (300+400).
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 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi [US Pub # 2009/0146019] in view of Broekhuijsen [DE 10158741] in further view of Garanchet [EP 1284177].
Regarding claim 39: Choi shows wherein the at least one line comprises a guiding hose (50) Choi does not explicitly show a guiding link chain, in particular for accommodating at least one fluid line for fluid transmission and at least one cable for energy and information transmission.
However Garanchet shows a guiding link chain, in particular for accommodating at least one fluid line for fluid transmission and at least one cable for energy and information transmission (see translation “…The device according to the invention can find application for any automaton comprising moving parts supplied by elements of energy supply beam, both electric and fluid, as it was recalled…”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have the guide to accommodate fluid line to prevent fluid clogging and lines tangling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 28-41, 44-47 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
691
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
607
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example [DE 101587] shows robot with cable with return element (25), guide (26) and mounting element (27).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights