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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/302,260 filled on 08/18/2025.
Claims 1-4 are presented for examination.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In the drawing, a reference number 38 and 32 is labeled for the same entity in Fig. 2, where the specification cites in para. [0023], “the movable stand 30 comprises a body 32 and a plurality of wheels 34 attached to the body 32”. Then what is referred to reference number 38?
b. The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first recognizer” and “second recognize” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 cites “a third control process in which the robot moves the workpiece gripped with the gripper to the second placement region after the working machine has worked on the workpiece” on lines 21-22”, where in the lines 24-26 of the claim 1 cites the similar claimed feature with wording variation as the feature is cited in lines 21-22 except for a citation of fourth process in line 24. It is not clear how the applicant’s invention as cited in third control process is different than the task performed in the fourth control process. Further clarification is required.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “first recognizer” and “second recognizer” in Claims 1; have has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “first recognizer” and “second recognizer” in claim 1; are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the corresponding entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such as one of ordinary skills in the art would understand which structures perform(s) the corresponding claim function in claim 1. Therefore, the claim 1 is indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because of its dependency on the rejected claims.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above from the 112(f) interpretation and 112 (b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for “recognizer” to perform the corresponding claimed function in claims 1-4. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because of its dependency on the rejected claims.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakasugi et al. (US 2013/0055560 A1) (hereinafter Nakasugi).
Claim 1. Nakasugi teaches a robot system (See Fig. 1, “a robot cell apparatus 100” construed as robot system) comprising:
a movable stand (See Fig. 1, Para. [0020], “table 1 with casters 16 are provided so as to be movable);
a robot mounted on the movable table (See Fig. 1, “Robot arms 2 and 3 are mounted on movable table 1);
a working machine mounted on the movable stand at a different position from the robot (See Fig. 1, discloses “parts supplier 9 with tool stand 19 and a grasping jig 11 [construed as working machine] are mounted on the movable table for assembling workpieces”);
a first placement region at which a workpiece is placed before the working machine works on the workpiece (See Fig. 1, Para. [0033], “the parts placed on supplier 9 are moved to grasping jig 11 [construed as first placement region] for assembling); and
a second placement region at which the workpiece is placed after the working machine has worked on the workpiece (See Para. [0031]-[0033], “After the assembly work is completed, the hand 5 grasps the workpiece, and conveying the workpiece to the plane 8 [i.e., second placement region as claimed] of the table of the robot cell apparatus in a subsequent process”),
wherein
the robot (See Fig. 1) comprises:
a gripper configured to grip the workpiece (See Para. [0019], Fig. 1, discloses “At the distal ends 2b and 3b, hands 4 and 5 [construed as gripper] capable of grasping a workpiece are provided”);
a first recognizer configured to recognize a state of the workpiece at the first placement region (See Para. [0023], [0031]-[0032], “camera [construed as recognizer] which detects a position of a workpiece”, where in Para. [0032], discloses camera 6 [construed as first recognizer as claimed]); and
a second recognizer configured to recognize a state of the second placement region (See Para. [0031], “the camera detects that the assembled workpiece is conveyed from the preceding process and placed on the plane 8 [i.e., second placement region of the workpiece] of the table 1”, where in Para. [0032], discloses camera 7 [construed as second recognizer as claimed]), and
the robot is configured to perform:
a first control process in which the robot grips the workpiece with the gripper after the state of the workpiece has been recognized by the first recognizer (See Para. [0032], “the control device 12 controls each joint portion and the hand 5 of the robot arm 3 so that the hand 5 of the robot arm 3 grasps the part placed on the parts supplier 9”);
a second control process in which the robot moves the workpiece gripped with the gripper to the working machine (See Para. [0023], [0032], “grasp and place the part on Jig 11 [i.e., working machine]“);
a third control process in which the robot moves the workpiece gripped with the gripper to the second placement region after the working machine has worked on the workpiece (See Para. [0033], “After the assembly work is completed, the hand 5 grasps the workpiece, and conveying the workpiece to the plane 8 of the table of the robot cell apparatus in a subsequent process”); and
a fourth control process in which the robot places the workpiece gripped with the gripper onto the second placement region after the second placement region has been recognized by the second recognizer (See Para. [0031], “the camera detects that the assembled workpiece is conveyed from the preceding process and placed on the plane 8 [i.e., second placement region of the workpiece] of the table 1”, where in Para. [0032], discloses camera 7 [construed as second recognizer as claimed], and/or see Para. [0033], “After the assembly work is completed, the hand 5 grasps the workpiece and conveying the workpiece to the plane of the table of the robot cell apparatus in a subsequent process”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasugi et al. (US 2013/0055560 A1) (hereinafter Nakasugi) in view of Sun et al. (US 2022/0289502 A1) (hereinafter Sun).
Claim 2. Nakasugi teaches the robot system according to claim 1, wherein the robot is further configured to perform a control process in which the workpiece gripped with the gripper after the working machine has worked on the workpiece and before the third control process is performed (See Para. [0023], [0031]-[0033], Fig. 1, discloses “a grasping jig 11 that grips the workpiece for assembling the workpiece, and after assembling the workpiece, the robot grasps the workpiece and convey to plan 8 of the table). Nakasugi does not explicitly spell out that the grip position is claimed.
However, Sun et al. (US 2022/0289502 A1) teaches , “a robotic arm mounted on a mobile cart or chassis” (See Para. [0096], [0208]), and “change a location on the item at which the item is grasped” (See Para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Nakasugi with a feature of changing the grasping location of the workpiece as taught by Sun in order to place each workpiece in a corresponding available defined location for machine identification and sorting.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasugi et al. (US 2013/0055560 A1) (hereinafter Nakasugi) in view of Konolige et al. (US 2016/0136808 A1) (hereinafter Konolige).
Claim 3. Nakasugi teaches the robot system according to claim 1, but fails to teach, where the system further comprising a solar power generation device configured to supply power to the robot.
However, Konolige et al. (US 2016/0136808 A1) teaches a solar power generation device configured to supply power to the robot (See Para. [0041], “The mechanical system 120 may include motor 122 powered by a power source, such as solar power”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Nakasugi with a solar power as taught by Konolige in order for financial savings, and additionally, it is more convenient to move the table/stand around the work space by a solar power as no external power connection would be required.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakasugi et al. (US 2013/0055560 A1) (hereinafter Nakasugi) in view of Sun et al. (US 2022/0289502 A1) (hereinafter Sun) and further in view of Konolige et al. (US 2016/0136808 A1)
Claim 4. The teaching of Nakasugi as modified by the teaching of Sun teaches the robot system according to claim 2, but fails to teach where the robot system further comprising a solar power generation device configured to supply power to the robot.
However, Konolige teaches a solar power generation device configured to supply power to the robot (See Para. [0041], “The mechanical system 120 may include motor 122 powered by a power source, such as solar power”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Nakasugi in view of the teaching of Sun with a solar power as taught by Konolige in order for financial savings, and additionally, it is more convenient to move the table/stand around the work space by a solar power as no external power connection would be required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights