DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2: The metes and bounds of the limitation “in a posture in which the third axis is positioned on a side of the first axis rather than the second axis” (Lines 3-4) are unclear. One possible amendment that would clarify the claim is as follows: “in which the first axis is positioned third axis and the second axis.”
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0347918 A1 to Mochizuki, which discloses:
Claim 1: A robot 200 (FIG. 5) comprising:
a mount 210 fixed to an installation surface BN;
a base 221 connected to the mount to be rotatable about a first axis O1;
a first arm 222 connected to the base 221 to be rotatable about a second axis O2 perpendicular to the first axis O1;
a second arm 223 connected to the first arm 222 to be rotatable about a third axis O3 parallel to the second axis O2; and
an offset length in a direction perpendicular to the first axis O1 between the first axis O1 and the second axis O2 being equal to or greater than one third of an offset length between the second axis O2 and the third axis O3.
Claim 2: The robot according to claim 1,
wherein a housing of the base 221 includes an inclined portion (see annotated FIG. 1) which is substantially parallel to a housing of the first arm 222 in a posture in which the third axis O3 is positioned on a side of the first axis O1 rather than the second axis O2.
Claim 3: The robot according to claim 1,
wherein the base 221 has a gap (see annotated FIG. 1) which passes through the base 221 in a direction parallel to the first axis O1 between the first axis O1 and the second axis O2.
Claim 12: The robot according to claim 1, wherein the robot 100 is configured to paint a workpiece (see the abstract – “a three-dimensional object printing apparatus includes a head that discharges a liquid to a three-dimensional workpiece”).
PNG
media_image1.png
624
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 7-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0347918 A1 to Mochizuki, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0311333 A1 to Konno et al.
Claim 7: Mochizuki discloses the robot according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the mount 210 is arranged at a position separated from a floor surface of a booth where a predetermined operation is performed on the workpiece conveyed in the booth.
Konno teaches a similar painting robot with a mount 10b which may be arranged on a floor 201 (FIG. 2A) or at a position separated from a floor surface 201 of a booth 200 (i.e., wall 202 shown in FIG. 2B) where a predetermined operation is performed on the workpiece conveyed in the booth.
In view of the Konno 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 robot disclosed by Mochizuki such that the mount 210 is arranged at a position separated from a floor surface of a booth where a predetermined operation is performed on the workpiece conveyed in the booth, because Konno teaches alternative mounting positions of a painting robot.
Claim 8: Konno teaches a mount 10b of a painting robot 10 which is disposed on a stand 10c disposed on a wall surface 202 of a booth 200.
In view of the Konno 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 robot disclosed by Mochizuki (as modified above by Konno) such that the mount 210 is disposed on a stand disposed on a wall surface of a painting booth in order to support the robot 200 of Mochizuki in a configuration in which the robot is mounted on a wall.
Claim 9: As shown in FIG. 1 of Mochizuki, the workpiece W (a football) is on the floor BN. According to the modification described above in view of the Konno teaching, in the rejection of Claim 8, the mount 210 is disposed on a stand on a wall surface of a painting booth. Thus, according to this modification, the mount 210 is disposed at a position higher than a reference position of the workpiece W.
Claim 10: Paragraph [0049] of Konno provides that “the painting robot 10 may be disposed such that the first axis A1 is parallel to a YZ plane illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B, and is in a range of 45 degrees to 90 degrees with respect to the Y-axis. Here, 90 degrees corresponds to the orientation illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B. When the painting robot 10 is disposed inclined in this manner, the floor 201 or the wall 202 may be inclined, or the base 10b or the auxiliary member 10c may be inclined.”
In view of this 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 orient, with a reasonable expectation of success, the mount 210 of the Mochizuki robot such that it is disposed such that the first axis O1 is inclined with respect to a vertical direction, in order to optimize the range of motion within a specific work area, for a particular workpiece W.
Claim 11: Mochizuki discloses the robot according to claim 1, but does not disclose the “third arm” and “wrist” recited in Claim 11.
Konno teaches a painting robot comprising a third arm 14 connected to a second arm 13 to be rotatable about a fourth axis A4 parallel to a third axis A3; and
a wrist WU having a three-axis configuration (axes A5/A6/A7) and being rotatably supported by the third arm 14, the wrist WU having a distal end portion 17 to which an end effector EE is attachable.
In view of the Konno 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 painting robot disclosed by Mochizuki, such that the Mochizuki robot further comprises:
a third arm connected to the second arm 224 to be rotatable about a fourth axis parallel to a third axis O3; and
a wrist having a three-axis configuration and being rotatably supported by the third arm, the wrist having a distal end portion to which an end effector is attachable, in order to give greater range of motion to the painting robot.
Claim 13 essentially recites a “robot system comprising:
a booth; and
[the robot of Claim 1] configured to perform a predetermined operation on a workpiece in the booth.”
As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Mochizuki anticipates the robot recited in Claim 1. Mochizuki further discloses that the robot 100 is configured to perform a predetermined operation on a workpiece W. Mochizuki does not appear to disclose a robot system comprising a booth.
Konno teaches a similar painting robot and robot system. The robot system disclosed by Konno comprises a booth 200.
In view of the Konno 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 robot system disclosed by Mochizuki such that it comprises a booth and the robot is configured to perform a predetermined operation (i.e., painting) on a workpiece W in the booth, in order to limit or prevent contaminants and dust from affecting the paint job on the workpiece W.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0347918 A1 to Mochizuki and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0311333 A1 to Konno et al. are the closest prior art.
Claim 4: Mochizuki discloses the robot according to claim 3, further comprising:
a line 420. However, the line 420 does not pass through the gap from a first space on an opposite side of the mount 210 with respect to the base 221, as recited in Claim 4.
Konno teaches a similar painting robot which comprises a line 18 that is routed from the installation surface IS, to the base 10b, and across each of the arms 12/13/14 of the robot. The line 18 is supported by various support bodies 19. However, Konno does not teach the specific routing of the line recited in Claim 4.
Conclusion
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
