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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a mechanism for gripping an object” in claims 1, 12, 14, 19 and 22. The corresponding structure is a robot gripper/hand 13B / 22B mounted on arm 13 / 22A and equivalents. See Figs. 2, 13, 15, 20 and paragraphs 0044-0046, 0109-0110; and “a mechanism for moving on a floor…” in claims 12, 14, 19 and 22. The corresponding structure is described in paragraphs 0109-0110 and Fig. 20, elements 12 and 12a carriage 12 comprises wheels 12 A and equivalents.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obunai et al. (EP4538657A1, hereinafter referred to as “Obunai”).
Regarding claim 1, Obunai discloses a robot system (Fig. 1, element 2) comprising: a workbench robot (Figs. 1-5, 8-10, 13-14 and 16, element 7; including 71, 75-76, 710, 750) that is fixed (via Fig 3, element 70) to a workbench (Figs. 1-2, 13-14 and 16, element 20, 20a, 20b) and includes a mechanism (Figs. 3-5, 9-10, 13-14, 16 and 18, elements 25, 25a, 25b, 75-76) for gripping an object on the workbench (paragraph 0014-0017, 0029-0033, 0037, 0095, 0129); and a controller (Fig. 10, element 8, 81, 82, 83) that controls an operation of the workbench robot (paragraph 0015, 0082, 0089-0091), wherein the controller executes a weighing process (Fig. 11, step S101-S125) of causing the workbench robot to grip a spatula (Figs. 1-4, 8-9, 14-16, element 3, 31, 32; paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0035-0036, 0118-0119, 0126-0127), perform an operation of scooping (Fig. 11, step S106; Figs. 13-14) and transferring (Figs. 11, 14 and 16, step S113) a powdery material, a particle, or a viscous material (Figs. 8, 13-16, element 9) as a weighing target, which is contained in an original container (Figs. 1-3, 13, element 21, 21a, 21b) (paragraph 0017, 0035, 0131, 0137-0142, 0188), to a transfer destination container (Figs. 1-3, 16, element 23, 32) by using the spatula (paragraphs 0023, 0192-0196), measure a weight (Fig. 11, step S109, S116, S124) of the material in the transfer destination container by using a scale (Figs. 1-3, 10, 16, element 22 or 24), and acquire a measurement result (Fig. 11, step S110, S116, S124-S125; paragraphs 0015, 0020-0027, 0027, 0121, 0131, 0160-0161).
Regarding claim 2, Obunai discloses the robot system according to claim 1, wherein: the controller further executes a process of acquiring a target value and an allowable range (N) of the weight of the material in the transfer destination container, and the weighing process includes the controller causing the workbench robot to perform an additional scooping and transferring operation in a case in which the measurement result acquired after the scooping and transferring operation is performed once or a plurality of number of times exceeds the allowable range and is smaller than the target value (paragraphs 0009, 0011, 0015-0017, 0025, 0123-0125, 0173-0178).
Regarding claim 3, Obunai discloses the robot system according to claim 2, wherein the weighing process includes the controller causing the workbench robot to perform an operation (paragraphs 0082-0091) of scooping and transferring the material (Fig. 8, element 9) in the transfer destination container (Figs. 5, 8, 18-19, element 32) to the original container (Fig. 3, element 21) by using the spatula (paragraphs 0023-0024, 0035-0045, 0137-0156, 0190) in a case in which the measurement result acquired after the scooping and transferring operation is performed once or a plurality of number of times exceeds the allowable range and is greater than the target value (paragraphs 0009, 0011, 0015-0118, 0137-0156, 0111-0118). Note that in this anticipation rejection, the spoon/spatula itself is treated as the transfer destination container.
Regarding claim 11, Obunai discloses the robot system according to claim 1, wherein, in a case in which a first original container containing a first material and a second original container containing a second material different from the first material are prepared as the original container, the controller (Fig. 10, element 8) causes the workbench robot (Figs. 1-3, element 7) to use a first spatula (Figs. 4-6 and 8, element 3) in a case of executing the weighing process of the first material, and then to use a second spatula that is an individual different from the first spatula (Figs. 1-3, elements 28, 281, 283, 285) in a case of executing the weighing process of the second material (paragraphs 0030, 0035-0036, 0105-0110, 0112, 0119, 0122-0129, 0222, 0250-0251, 0290-0291).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obunai as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Leventhal et al. (US 2012/0297902 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Leventhal”).
Obunai teaches the robot system as applied to claim 2 above, wherein the controller further executes a process of causing the workbench to grip, one at a time, the spatula (paragraphs 0017-0019, 0048-0052; articulated robot 7 grips spoon 3). Obunai is silent regarding controller executing a process of causing the workbench robot to grip, one at a time, a plurality of types of spatulas having different sizes such that, in accordance with a magnitude of a difference between the measurement result and the target value or a magnitude of a difference between an estimated value of the weight of the material in the transfer destination container and the target value, an operation of performing scooping and transferring is performed by using a smaller spatula as the difference becomes smaller.
Leventhal teaches laboratory spatulas provided in a plurality of different sizes (micro, regular and macro sizes) that are capable of scooping different amounts of material (paragraphs 0009-0010, 0012, 0031-0037).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, provided with the weighing system of Obunai that tracks how far the current weight is from the target weight, would have recognized that the final increments of material must be transferred with greater precision. Leventhal teaches spatulas capable of transferring different quantities of material. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s effective filing date to equip the robot of Obunai with a set of the differently sized spatulas taught by Leventhal and to program the controller to select a smaller spatula when the remaining difference to the target weight becomes small. The modification is a simple application of a known tool (differently sized spatulas) to a known system that already measures the very parameter (remaining different to target weight) that would dictate tool selection. The result being more accurate final material transfer is the predictable result of the modification and requires no change in the basic principle of operation of Obunai’s robot system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 12-22 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang et al. “Autonomous biomimetic solid dispensing using a dual-arm robotic manipulator” is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Jiang et al. teaches a dual arm workbench robot controlled by a fuzzy logic controller that grips a spatula, scoops and transfers powdery solid material from a hopper into a destination vial, measures the weight on an analytical balance, and acquires the measurement result. Jiang et al. appears to anticipate claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
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, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights